The Ever Virginity of Mary

DTrent · Jan 19, 2006

MidnightBlue said:
Since the Bible is a product of the Church, the fallibility of the Church necessarily means that the Bible is fallible also.

I've never heard that the Bible is a product of the Church meaning that the fallibility of the CHurch means the Bible is fallable, too.
Actually, the Bible itself says it came from God. - 2Tim.3:16,17
It was "God-breathed". His Word is perfect but His followers ain't!

And I've heard it said the Church (I guess you mean the CATHOLIC Church) is perfect or infallable but I don't see where that is true.
Anyone care to explain or should that be for another thread?

Quiddity · Jan 19, 2006

---------MOD POST-----------

If you wish to seek further understanding then do so in the appropriate section. This is turning into a debate. There is a redundant thread going on at the moment. Feel free to join:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=323497#post323497

Linus · Jan 19, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
That is all. For me, at least, it is more about history than faith.

Same here. I'm not dogmatic about it, but I tend to believe that she wasn't a virgin her whole life. I find it a little hard to believe that she and Joseph simply never had sex. But it seems most of the passages given as evidence of her being the mother of other children besides Jesus are a bit shaky in their intended meaning.

Oh well.

Thanks for the timely response. Sorry for the lateness of the reply.

iris89 · Jan 19, 2006

Hi DTrent

You are correct, I for the life of me can not understand why some argue that the meaning was anything other than what we ordinarily take to mean sisters and brothers, in this case half brothers and half sisters, since Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father was God (YHWH). However as you can see some argue otherwise. Why? Probably because they have 'mental blinders' due to creedal beliefs that are NOT supported by the Bible, and you used an excellent Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, as it is actually published by a creed that pushes the creedal belief of ever virginity of Mary. Strange that at Matthew 1:25 in this Bible it says, "he took his wife to his home and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus" (New Jerusalem Bible) which differs from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible which reads, "And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay -Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).Interestingly the New American Bible [Catholic] says, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus" (New American Bible; NAB). Sounds like that creed does NOT know how to handle the obvious, that the scriptures do NOT back their creedal creed that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin.

As you said,

We can take a look at Matt.13:53-56 of the Jerusalem Bible where it talks about Jesus astonishing people in the synagogue with his teaching. So the people wanted to know where he got his wisdom from since he is the carpenter's son, his mother is the woman called Mary, and his BROTHERS (GREEK, adelphoi) James and Joseph and Simon and Jude, and his SISTERS (GREEK, adelphai) were all there with them. (Mary had other sons and also had daughters.)

Interestingly Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible on Matthew 13:53-56 says, "And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?" (Douay -Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB) right in keeping with what you said. So there is no excuse to think the words mean anything but what they say given the context they were used in. This would be the case in Koine Greek as well as in English, and brings up an interesting point which is usage sometimes governs the meaning of a word and in this case that meaning is made unmistakable by the context, i.e., literal sisters and brothers who are even named.

Your last comment really highlighted the facts,

Really, no one claims the ref to Jesus' MOTHER means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his NATURAL BROTHERS were not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word (syggenon) is used, as at Luke 21:16.) I would say that this info is impt to me becuz it reaffirms my faith in God's Word and makes sense. Why would I think that Joseph and Mary had no other children after Jesus was born? Since God instituted the marriage arrangement with its many joys I would not expect Him to expect Joseph and Mary NOT to indulge in them. What would be the point?? There would'nt be any... RE: Ezek.44:2 - Actually, chapters 40-48 speak of Ezekiel's vision of restored temple and land. In the midst of a land of pagan idolatry, it strengthened hope in the repentant Jewish exiles of again worshipping the true God at his temple. (No mention of Mary in research of this Scripture or vision.)

and makes the point that contending otherwise is just simply unreasonable.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

iris89 · Jan 19, 2006

Hi Linus

Your comment,

Same here. I'm not dogmatic about it, but I tend to believe that she wasn't a virgin her whole life. I find it a little hard to believe that she and Joseph simply never had sex. But it seems most of the passages given as evidence of her being the mother of other children besides Jesus are a bit shaky in their intended meaning.

Makes a lot of sense as I can not imagine any real man marrying a women and not having sex with her, ever. This in my way of looking at the world makes absolutely no sense. To imagine such a thing is in itself unbelievable.

Let's keep this great discussion going as a great discussion.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

DTrent · Jan 19, 2006

Iris -
Thanx for the nice comments. I do appreciate them. (Some people on the board do not know how to be kind.)

Yes, it seems that many religions say one thing but their own Holy Book says another.

And which one should be adhered to? The Holy Book, not the religion! Our beliefs should be based on said Holy Book, not on our own selves, yes? And I believe that is how it should go with ALL faiths...

Cya -

iris89 · Jan 19, 2006

Hi DTrent

You are most welcome. You have learned from me and I have learned from you. That is the advantage of discussion over debating. I love discussion as both parties to a discussion advance their knowledge; whereas, debates do not lead to further learning but only in trying to best the other person, an unliving thing per Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Your Friend in christ Iris89

James the Persian · Jan 20, 2006

iris89 said:
So now you are in effect saying all the expert translators are in error, even the Catholic who hold to the same in error creedal creed of the ever virginity of Mary. Also, I checked this scripture out with the same two experts, , Rolf Fruille [spelling may be off], at the University of Oslo, one of the two acknowledged greatest living experts on this ancient language and Jason Beduhn at the University of Northern Arizona, and they both stated there was no possibility of another meaning on Matthew 1:25. So lets realize this is correct.

No, I am not saying the translators are wrong. Until is the correct word to use in English, it's just that using the word in modern English has an implication that is wholly absent in the original. It is, therefore, the interpretation and not the translation that is incorrect. You persist in holding to an incredibly anglocentric view of the Scriptures. If you were to read the Scriptures in another language (say Romanian, where pâna (until) has exactly the same meaning as the Koine), you would see that the translation is the same but the meaning differs from your interpretation of the English. It is not a problem of bad translation but rather of the limitations of the English language. All translations suffer from this problem in one way or another, so unless you believe that a translation into English was inspired by God you must look to the original language to clarify any ambiguities.

James

James the Persian · Jan 20, 2006

For those who keep bringing up the word adelphoi as 'clearly' showing that Christ had brothers who were also sons of Mary, can I please just point out that adelphoi can mean brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins or even just very, very close friends (though the latter meaning is not possible in this context). There is no 'clearly' about it. I'm sure everyone will continue to ignore me because of their 'creedal blinders' :banghead3 , but this is linguistic fact and not theological opinion.

As for those of you who claim that the use of half-brothers supports the view that they were Mary's children. I'd note that the word adelphoi is found in speach reported by the author. Unless you can show evidence that those speakers knew that Christ was God's rather than Joseph's son (and I'd say there's ample evidence to the contrary as they specifically call Him the carpenter's son) then your argument simply fails. As far as the speakers were concerned Christ was the son of Mary and Joseph. Half-brothers, then, would imply that they were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage unless you believe Mary married again after Joseph's death. This is simple textual analysis and has absolutely nothing to do with reading my beliefs into the text. I agree that the Scriptures do not prove my position (but they don't have to) but they most certainly don't contradict it.

James

iris89 · Jan 20, 2006

Hi James the Persian

FIRST, You overlook the simple fact that in both Koine Greek and English, context often governs,
Matthew 13:53-56:

Interestingly the context in which they were called brothers and sisters is such as to make the arguments of some that the Koine Greek words meant something else look absurd. True some Koine Greek words could mean more than one thing including the ones in question, but the context of their usage clearly shows the truth or reality in this case. Let's look at the scriptures in question to see the facts.

The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible at Matthew 13:53-56 says, "And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?" (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). So there is no excuse to think the words mean anything but what they say given the context they were used in. This would be the case in Koine Greek as well as in English, and brings up an interesting point which is usage sometimes governs the meaning of a word and in this case that meaning is made unmistakable by the context, i.e., literal sisters and brothers who are even named.

This fact is also shown in the Jerusalem Bible at Matthew at 13:53-56 where it talks about Jesus astonishing people in the synagogue with his teaching. So the people wanted to know where he got his wisdom from since he is the carpenter's son, his mother is the woman called Mary, and his BROTHERS (GREEK, adelphoi) James and Joseph and Simon and Jude, and his SISTERS (GREEK, adelphai) were all there with them. (Mary had other sons and also had daughters). The New Jerusalem Bible says, "When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; 54 and coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, 'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 This is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? So where did the man get it all?'" (The New Jerusalem Bible; TNJB).
Now, if one is to maintain the un-maintainable that by brothers and sisters some other relative was meant, then this would also apply to 'mother' and that is utterly absurd.

Jesus replied, "Who are my mother and my BROTHERS"? (Here he made the clear distinction of the difference between SPIRITUAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS and FLESHLY ones, or NATURAL ones. Really, no one claims the ref to Jesus' MOTHER means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his NATURAL BROTHERS were not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word (syggenon) is used, as at Luke 21:16.).

SECOND, You overlook the fact of recorded history:

Last, Jesus' (Yeshua's) brother James is mentioned by Flavius Josephus the ancient 1 century Jewish historian as follows, "concerning Albinus, under whose procuratorship James was slain; as also what edifices were built by Agrippa. ... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the orad; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: bus as for who seemed the most equitable of the citizens and such as were the most uneasy at the breacch of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa]," [source - The Life and works of Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston, A.M., pub. By The John C. Winston Co., in Philadelphia, Chapter IX, page 598]. So this speaks to the fact that James was the literal brother, actually half brother of Jesus (Yeshua) as his Father was God (YHWH).

THIRD, You overlook common sense.
Why would anyone think that Joseph and Mary had no other children after Jesus was born? Since God instituted the marriage arrangement with its many joys one would not expect Him to expect Joseph and Mary NOT to indulge in them. What would be the point?

FOURTH, You are mistaken with respect the English language as it has many terms for relatives other than literal brothers and sisters, so please get real.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

James the Persian · Jan 20, 2006

iris89 said:
Hi James the Persian

FIRST, You overlook the simple fact that in both Koine Greek and English, context often governs

I wasn't overlooking context at all. You were when you failed to distinguish between the context of the writing of an author who knew that Christ was the Son of God and the context of said author reporting the speech of others who had no such knowledge.

SECOND, You overlook the fact of recorded history:

I overlook no such thing. You still keep translating adelphoi as brothers as though that is the only possible translation when I have repeatedly demonstrated that it is not. Yes, James was the brother of Christ but that in no way implies that he shared Mary's blood. He could just as easily have been Joseph's by a previous marriage or, given that adelphos has so many meanings, no brother in English terms at all. You have yet to come up with any evidence to support your assetion that adelphos can only be translated as brother in this context.

THIRD, You overlook common sense.

In what way am I overlooking common sense? Holy Tradition tells us (and I know you ignore it, but I do not) that Mary remained virgin because she consecrated herself as a virgin to God. You may dispute the fact, but as I accept it it is hardly valid to say that I am overlooking your 'common sense' (by which you appear to mean that I don't read the frailties of the average human into Scripture when it comes to the Theotokos). I am not overlooking it at all, rather rejecting it in the light of further evidence. You overlook the fact that Mary was not 'just another human', but one that God found so worthy as to bear His Son in the flesh. I hardly think that your 'common sense' can extend to such an essentially uncommon situation.

FOURTH, You are mistaken with respect the English language as it has many terms for relatives other than literal brothers and sisters, so please get real.

Now this one is just bizarre. Where did I ever reference the English vocabulary for relations? I didn't. I've spoken of the Koine but never once mentioned the English. The problem with these translations is caused precisely because of the paucity of kinship terms in Koine (ditto Aramaic, by the way) when compared to English. If you could stick to arguing against points that I've actually made rather than inventing points which you wish I had made the discussion would go a lot more smoothly. Actually answering rather than avoiding my points would help, too.

I'd also appreciate it if you could take a less combative tone. I'm happy to debate the issues with you but you consistently come across as attacking my faith. I have not once attacked your belief (and as far as I am concerned you have every right to it, however misguided I feel it may be) but have only discussed the evidence of the Scriptures and other aspects of Holy Tradition. You have failed to show the same courtesy towards me so I can only assume that your customary way of signing your posts is intended to be sarcastic - you certainly aren't coming across as friendly by any stretch of the imagination.

James

iris89 · Jan 20, 2006

Hi James the Persian

FIRST, Your comment is the same thing that I have shown in error numerous times, now I shall do it once more. This is getting tiring. Also, I plan to address tradition straight from the Bible and I do hope you learn from it.

I wasn't overlooking context at all. You were when you failed to distinguish between the context of the writing of an author who knew that Christ was the Son of God and the context of said author reporting the speech of others who had no such knowledge. I overlook no such thing. You still keep translating adelphoi as brothers as though that is the only possible translation when I have repeatedly demonstrated that it is not.

First, while the word adelphos can have many meanings as do some words in English, the meaning of adelphos is governed by the context within which it appears. I have clearly shown that with respect its context in Matthew 13:53-56 its meaning is quite clear as follows:

Interestingly the context in which they were called brothers and sisters is such as to make the arguments of some that the Koine Greek words meant something else look absurd. True some Koine Greek words could mean more than one thing including the ones in question, but the context of their usage clearly shows the truth or reality in this case. Let's look at the scriptures in question to see the facts.

The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible at Matthew 13:53-56 says, "And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?" (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). So there is no excuse to think the words mean anything but what they say given the context they were used in. This would be the case in Koine Greek as well as in English, and brings up an interesting point which is usage sometimes governs the meaning of a word and in this case that meaning is made unmistakable by the context, i.e., literal sisters and brothers who are even named.

This fact is also shown in the Jerusalem Bible at Matthew at 13:53-56 where it talks about Jesus astonishing people in the synagogue with his teaching. So the people wanted to know where he got his wisdom from since he is the carpenter's son, his mother is the woman called Mary, and his BROTHERS (GREEK, adelphoi) James and Joseph and Simon and Jude, and his SISTERS (GREEK, adelphai) were all there with them. (Mary had other sons and also had daughters). The New Jerusalem Bible says, "When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; 54 and coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, 'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 This is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? So where did the man get it all?'" (The New Jerusalem Bible; TNJB).

Now, if one is to maintain the un-maintainable that by brothers and sisters some other relative was meant, then this would also apply to 'mother' and that is utterly absurd.

Which you reject even though it is completely logical; whereas, you hold for a meaning that given context of Matthew 13 is completely illogical. Why, because of tradition.

Second, Holding to something illogical because of tradition is both illogical and definitely NOT in keeping with what Jesus (Yeshua) and the Apostles said about tradition, which is as follows:

Matthew 15:;1-3, "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by you" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Mark 7:1-8, "Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." (AV).

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

So as we can plainly see, holding to something because of tradition is NOT in keeping with the Bible.

SECOND, Your comment,

Yes, James was the brother of Christ but that in no way implies that he shared Mary's blood. He could just as easily have been Joseph's by a previous marriage

You have failed to show that Joseph was previously married and history shows James to be younger than Jesus (Yeshua). So please stop grasping at straws.

THIRD, Your comment,

You overlook the fact that Mary was not 'just another human', but one that God found so worthy as to bear His Son in the flesh.

is what I call a 'so what.' How would that make either her or her husband different in inbred desires from other humans. Explain!

LAST, I am an independent researcher and my job is to dig out facts and present them. I do NOT engage in debates which I consider worthless, only in up-building discussions such as the one I am having with Ltrent. Also, I am NOT given to speculation nor holding to tradition, only facts.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

DTrent · Jan 21, 2006

WOW!! Where in the world did the notion come from that Joseph's 2nd wife was Mary?!!??!??
I have never heard THAT one!!!
There is NO indication IN SCRIPTURE that Joseph had other children BEFORE marrying Mary!
Their 1st child was Jesus. The rest came later for Mary was no longer virgin. (That teaching is CHURCH DOCTRINE, not BIBLE doctrine.)
Remember the account in Luke 2:41-51 where the family went on the trip to Jerusalem for the annual Passover celebration? Amidst all the relatives, Mary & Joseph noticed Jesus to be 'missing'. With all the other kids they had & all the hustle & bustle of the long trip by whatever humble means they had to travel by, it's not surprising that SOMETHING 'got lost'! (Or in this case, someONE!)

And why in the world would anyone think Joseph wouldn't 'sleep' with his wife after they were legally married?!?? That would go against God's marital arrangement. One is supposed to 'rejoice with the wife of one's youth'. - Prov.5.

Just some points to ponder -

iris89 · Jan 21, 2006

Hi Dtrent

Your comment reflects by sentiments exactly,

WOW!! Where in the world did the notion come from that Joseph's 2nd wife was Mary?!!??!?? I have never heard THAT one!!! There is NO indication IN SCRIPTURE that Joseph had other children BEFORE marrying Mary! Their 1st child was Jesus. The rest came later for Mary was no longer virgin. (That teaching is CHURCH DOCTRINE, not BIBLE doctrine.) Remember the account in Luke 2:41-51 where the family went on the trip to Jerusalem for the annual Passover celebration? Amidst all the relatives, Mary & Joseph noticed Jesus to be 'missing'. With all the other kids they had & all the hustle & bustle of the long trip by whatever humble means they had to travel by, it's not surprising that SOMETHING 'got lost'! (Or in this case, someONE!) And why in the world would anyone think Joseph wouldn't 'sleep' with his wife after they were legally married?!?? That would go against God's marital arrangement. One is supposed to 'rejoice with the wife of one's youth'. - Prov.5.

And here are some more facts:

The second century Syriac Apostolic Constitutions tell us that James was "the brother of Christ according to the flesh... and one appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself," (8.35).

Even Josephus (37-96 CE), who was not a Christian, but was a Jewish contemporary of James, knows about him, and even insists that James' death was the reason the Jewish people believed Jerusalem fell: "These things [the Uprising and consequent destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans] happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus known as Christ, for though he was the most Righteous of men, the Jews put him to death."

This passage, remarked on also by Origen (185-254 CE), and Jerome, only exists in Eusebius' E.H., Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, and Origen's letter (Contra Celsus 1.47), and, interestingly, is no longer extant in any manuscript of the works of Josephus! Commenting on it, Eusebius says, "So remarkable a person must James have been, so universally esteemed for Righteousness, that even the most intelligent of Jews felt this was why his martyrdom was immediately followed by the siege of Jerusalem," (E.H. 2.23)

This contradicts Christian belief that the Temple fell because of the "death of Jesus," as Origen is well aware and at pains to "correct" in Contra Celsus. This letter also tells us that "the wonderful thing is that, though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the Righteousness of James was so great...that the people thought they had suffered these things on account of [him]." (Commentary on Matthew; 10.17)

For his part, Jerome, in his Lives, writes "This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great Holiness and reputation among the people that the destruction of Jerusalem was believed to have occurred on account of his death," and in a Commentary that "So Holy was James that the people zealously tried to touch the fringes of his garment," (Commentary on Galatians 1:19); these are the fringes commanded to be worn by observant Jews in Numbers 15:38:

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE), Archbishop under Constantine, tells us in his "Ecclesiastical History" that James was "The lord's brother, who had been elected by the Apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem," - "Ecclesiastical History" 2.23

Knowing Jesus would soon depart from them, his Disciples, according to the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, (buried and preserved in Nag Hammadi, Egypt), asked him who would lead them, "And Jesus said to them, 'In the place you are to go, go to James the Righteous, for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence.'"

Jerome (342-420 CE), basing his knowledge on Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Jewish historian Josephus, also knows this when he says in his "Lives of Illustrious Men" that "He [James] alone enjoyed the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since, indeed, he did not wear woolen, but only linen clothes, and went into the Temple alone and prayed on behalf of the people, so that his knees were reputed to have acquired the callousness of a camel's knees," and that after Jesus departed "was immediately appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles." - "Lives of Illustrious Men" chapter 2

Palestinian Jewish Christian Hegesippus (100-180 CE), portions of whose five books of early Church history only survive in passages cited by Eusebius, tells us, "There were many James', but this one...the Lord's brother...was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the Lord's time till our own has called him the Righteous," and that "ecause of his unsurpassable Righteousness he was called the Righteous, and Oblias," (E.H. 2.23)[sources - James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Robert Eisenman; and History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff; James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. By and Robert Eisenman, New York: VikingPenguin, 1997. ISBN 0-670-86932-5; The Brother of Jesus. By Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ISBN 0-06-055660-9]

And,

Acts 1:13-14, "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Authorized King James Bible;AV)

And,

It appears that during Jesus' ministry James was well acquainted with his brother's activity (Lu 8:19; Joh 2:12), but though apparently not opposed, he was not one of the disciples and followers of Christ. (Mt 12:46-50; Joh 7:5) He was probably with his nonbelieving brothers when they urged Jesus to go boldly up to the Festival of Tabernacles, at a time when the rulers of the Jews were seeking to kill him. (Joh 7:1-10) James also may have been numbered among the relatives that said of Jesus: "He has gone out of his mind."-Mr 3:21.[source - Insight on the Bible]

Click to expand...

And,

James, the Lord's Brother

Though the word adelfov is used in the LXX in a wider sense than 'brother,' it has been judged that its use in the N.T. is restricted to those born of the same mother; and therefore the Lord's brother could not have been the same person as the son of Alphaeus. Nor is it probable that he was one of the twelve apostles, for we read that "neither did his brethren believe in him." #Joh 7:5. The first mention of the Lord's brethren being with the apostles is in #Ac 1:14, and there they are referred to as distinct from them. James the Lord's brother was seen at Jerusalem by Paul. #Ga 1:19. The being thus designated distinguishes him from the apostle who is simply called James in #Ga 2:9,12. Learned authorities state that in #Ga 1:19 the construction of the passage in the Greek does not necessarily imply that James the Lord's brother was an apostle. He is mentioned also in #Mt 13:55 Mr 6:3.[source - Concise Bible Dictionary]

Click to expand...

All speak for themselves, I need say no more.

Your Friend in Christ iris89

DTrent · Jan 21, 2006

Hi Iris -
I often read info gathered by Jerome, Origen, & Eusebius, too.
Good call!

iris89 · Jan 21, 2006

Hi DTrent

Thanks, and here is some more.

And the saying, "Whence hath this man this wisdom,"5260 indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, "lo, a greater than Solomon is here."5261 And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?"5262 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?"5263 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter,5264 as it is entitled, or "The Book of James,"5265 that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,"5266 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's highlightbrother."5267 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.5268 And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James."5269 With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, "And His sisters are they not all with us,"5270 seems to me to signify something of this nature-they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner, inasmuch as 425He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others-the women-as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, "How knoweth this man letters having never learned?"5271 which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.

References:

5260

Matt. xiii. 54.

5261

Matt. xii. 42.

5262

Matt. xiii. 55.

5263

Matt. xiii. 55, 56.

5264

The Gospel of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered in 1886 and published in 1892.

5265

Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9.

5266

Luke i. 35.

5267

Gal. i. 19.

5268

Jos. Ant. xviii. 4.

5269

Jude 1.

5270

Matt. xiii. 56.

5271

John vii. 15.

[source - The Brethren of Jesus. ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Testament of Abraham, The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, The Narrative of Zosimus, The Apology of Aristides, The Epistles of Clement (complete text), Origen's Commentary on John, Books 1-10, and Commentary on Matthew, Books 1, 2, and 10-14., by Philip Schaff

Says it all, doesn't it:

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Scott1 · Jan 22, 2006

DTrent said:
And why in the world would anyone think Joseph wouldn't 'sleep' with his wife after they were legally married?!?? That would go against God's marital arrangement. One is supposed to 'rejoice with the wife of one's youth'. - Prov.5.

Just some points to ponder -

Good points, but please take the time to ponder Mark Shea's view on the subject:

(O)ther aspects of the biblical narrative strongly suggest she remained a virgin.

For instance, Mary reacts with astonishment at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son. If you are at a wedding shower and tell the bride-to-be, "You're going to have cute kids" and she responds "How can that be?" you can only conclude one of two things: she either doesn't know about the birds and the bees or she's taken a vow of virginity. In short, the promise of a child is an odd thing for a betrothed woman to be amazed about... unless, of course, she'd already decided to remain a virgin even after marriage.

Likewise, Joseph reacts with fear at the thought of taking Mary as a wife. Why fear? Modernity assumes it was because he thought her guilty of adultery, but the typical view in antiquity understood the text to mean he was afraid of her sanctity-as a pious Jew would be afraid to touch the Ark of the Covenant. After all, think of what Mary told him about the angel's words: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

I'm not even a pious Jew, but with words like that echoing in my ears about my wife, I'd find it easy to believe that Joseph, knowing what he did about his wife, would have chosen celibacy.

"But nothing is sure, based on the text alone. It's still ambiguous," says the critic. Right. The biblical text alone doesn't supply an unambiguous answer to this or a myriad of other questions, including "Is the Holy Spirit God?," "How do you contract a valid marriage?," and "Can you be a polygamist?" But the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text does supply an answer: Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to "Mary, Ever-Virgin." The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown.

The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion

The NT gives no definate information about Mary's virginity in partu, nor about her virginity post partum... some scholars believe that discussions and the eventual pious beliefs about Mary's perpetual virginity came about in large part due to the fact that virginity was being emphasized within the Church (pre-third century) for ascetical reasons, and Mary (as a perpetual virgin) presented a persuasive model for Christian women.... but many would point to the complications that this belief caused the Church in it's fight against the heresy of the Gnostics and Docetists.

Whatever the opinion, I pray everyone remembers that devotion to Mary (and the Saints) is ultimately devotion to Christ, whose grace has triumphed in those people.

James the Persian · Jan 23, 2006

iris89 said:
You have failed to show that Joseph was previously married and history shows James to be younger than Jesus (Yeshua). So please stop grasping at straws.

I'm going to answer only this point because you are right that we are going round and round in circles. We should just agree to disagree and be done with it. I still believe you are wrong but I can see that I will never convince you of this.

I would like to point out, though, that I do not have to provide you with evidence for Joseph's previous marriage in order for my point to hold true. I do have such evidence, but it is nothing you will accept. My point was merely that the text supports my belief just as much as it does yours (but given other aspects, such as Mary being entrusted to St. John, I would say it supports my position better). That's all I was saying - that your 'clear' interpretation of the text is anything but clear.

I am interested, though, in your evidence from history that St. James the Just was younger than Christ. I know of no such evidence and would appreciate it if you could provide some rather than just asserting that it exists. The evidence of iconography (even early icons) is that James was a very old man when he was martyred. I'm sure you won't accept such, but you've yet to provide any evidence to contradict mine.

James

iris89 · Jan 23, 2006

Hi James the Persian

Wrong, I always provide the evidence for what I say, either from the Bible and/or from well respected historical resources. That Mary was entrusted to the Apostle John instead of one of Jesus' (Yeshua's) in no way supports your position. Why? Because at that time his half brothers were NOT yet his disciples, but his half brother James later became one of his disciples and held a prominent position in the congregation in Jerusalem.

Your failure to give good evidence or in fact any evidence for Joseph's previous marriage strongly shows your position has no support whatsoever except maybe in your own mind. The context of the scriptures shows my position to be the correct one and yours the incorrect one as does all the evidence I have presented to your zero evidence. Also, your asking for evidence that James the half brother of Christ was younger than he without providing any evidence for your wrong claim that Joseph had been previously married indicates you are being hypocritical in support of your tradition myth. But here is evidence that his half brother James was younger than Jesus (Yeshua),

Finally, Paul states clearly in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, that the Nazarean emissaries of James (Jesus' younger brother) were promulgating "another Jesus", one very different from the Jesus that Paul was promulgating.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." [source - Library of Alexander from 'This very abbreviated historical perspective is taken from numerous sources, including specifically, the excellent book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln [Dell Publishing, 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, 1983']

In fact your statement with respect so called evidence,

I would like to point out, though, that I do not have to provide you with evidence for Joseph's previous marriage in order for my point to hold true. I do have such evidence, but it is nothing you will accept. My point was merely that the text supports my belief just as much as it does yours (but given other aspects, such as Mary being entrusted to St. John, I would say it supports my position better). That's all I was saying - that your 'clear' interpretation of the text is anything but clear.

Click to expand...

clearly indicates that the only so called evidence you may have is tradition which I showed in a previous post is really no evidence at all per the Bible. The Bible clearly says at Matthew 15:2-3, "

Mt 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" And at Matthew 15:6, "he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Also, the Bible states the same thing with respect tradition at other places, one of which is in Mark as follows, Mark 7:3, " (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;" and Mark 7:5, "And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?" and Mark 7:8-9, "Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition." And at Mark 7:13, "making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do." (ASV) so as we can see tradition is void, thus no evidence of anything.

And you overlook the many previous items I posted such as the following:

It appears that during Jesus' ministry James was well acquainted with his brother's activity (Lu 8:19; Joh 2:12), but though apparently not opposed, he was not one of the disciples and followers of Christ. (Mt 12:46-50; Joh 7:5) He was probably with his nonbelieving brothers when they urged Jesus to go boldly up to the Festival of Tabernacles, at a time when the rulers of the Jews were seeking to kill him. (Joh 7:1-10) James also may have been numbered among the relatives that said of Jesus: "He has gone out of his mind."-Mr 3:21.[source - Insight on the Bible]

Click to expand...

And,

James, the Lord's Brother

Though the word adelfov is used in the LXX in a wider sense than 'brother,' it has been judged that its use in the N.T. is restricted to those born of the same mother; and therefore the Lord's brother could not have been the same person as the son of Alphaeus. Nor is it probable that he was one of the twelve apostles, for we read that "neither did his brethren believe in him." #Joh 7:5. The first mention of the Lord's brethren being with the apostles is in #Ac 1:14, and there they are referred to as distinct from them. James the Lord's brother was seen at Jerusalem by Paul. #Ga 1:19. The being thus designated distinguishes him from the apostle who is simply called James in #Ga 2:9,12. Learned authorities state that in #Ga 1:19 the construction of the passage in the Greek does not necessarily imply that James the Lord's brother was an apostle. He is mentioned also in #Mt 13:55 Mr 6:3.[source - Concise Bible Dictionary]

Click to expand...

And new evidence as follows:

In fact, it is very remarkable that the family of Jesus, some of whose members during his life had been 27incredulous and hostile to his mission, constituted now a part of the Church, and held in it a very exalted position. One is led to suppose that the reconciliation took place during the sojourn of the apostles in Galilee. The celebrity which had attached itself to the name of their relative, those five thousand persons who believed in him, and were assured of having seen him after he had arisen, served to make an impression on their minds. From the time of the definite establishment of the apostles at Jerusalem, we find with them Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the brothers of Jesus. In what concerns Mary, it appears that John, thinking in this to obey a recommendation of the Master, had adopted and taken her to his own home. He perhaps took her back to Jerusalem. This woman, whose personal history and character have remained veiled in obscurity, assumed hence great importance. The words that the evangelist put into the mouth of some unknown women: "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the babes which thou has sucked," began to be verified. It is probable that Mary survived her son a few years. As for the brothers of Jesus, their history is wrapped in obscurity. Jesus had several brothers and sisters. It seemed probable, however, that in the class of persons which were called "Brothers of the Lord," there were included relations in the second degree. The question is only of moment so far as it concerns James. This James the Just, or "brother of the Lord," whom we shall see playing a great part in the first thirty years of Christianity, was the James, the son of Alphæus, who appears to have been a cousin germain of Jesus, or a whole brother of Jesus? The data in respect of him are altogether uncertain and contradictory. What we do know of this James represents him to be such a different person from Jesus, that we refuse to believe that two men so dissimilar were born of the same mother. If Jesus was the true founder of Christianity, James was its most 28dangerous enemy; he nearly ruined everything by his narrow-mindedness. Later, it was certainly believed that James the Just was a whole brother of Jesus. But perhaps some confusion was mixed up with the subject.[source - Chapter III. Return of the Apostles to Jerusalem.-End of the Period of Apparitions. The History of the Origins of Christianity. Book II. The Apostles., by Ernest Renan]

Click to expand...

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

iris89 · Jan 23, 2006

Hi Scott1

Mark Shea's view on the subject is based on TRADITION and NOT historical fact as even he admits,

?" But the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text does supply an answer: Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to "Mary, Ever-Virgin." The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown.

But as I told another poster,

clearly indicates that the only so called evidence you may have is tradition which I showed in a previous post is really no evidence at all per the Bible. The Bible clearly says at Matthew 15:2-3, "

Mt 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" And at Matthew 15:6, "he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Also, the Bible states the same thing with respect tradition at other places, one of which is in Mark as follows, Mark 7:3, " (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;" and Mark 7:5, "And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?" and Mark 7:8-9, "Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition." And at Mark 7:13, "making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do." (ASV) so as we can see tradition is void, thus no evidence of anything.

Also, the tradition you refer to,

The NT gives no definate information about Mary's virginity in partu, nor about her virginity post partum... some scholars believe that discussions and the eventual pious beliefs about Mary's perpetual virginity came about in large part due to the fact that virginity was being emphasized within the Church (pre-third century) for ascetical reasons, and Mary (as a perpetual virgin) presented a persuasive model for Christian women.... but many would point to the complications that this belief caused the Church in it's fight against the heresy of the Gnostics and Docetists.

did not come into existence until the 4 th. Century asd is just a self-justification for believing in a myth or tradition, but not reality.

You make the claim of:

Whatever the opinion, I pray everyone remembers that devotion to Mary (and the Saints) is ultimately devotion to Christ, whose grace has triumphed in those people.

but fail to show any evidence for this wrong claim. Let's look briefly why this would be impossible,

First, Romans 5:12 says, " Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), so Mary and the others would have been under inherited sin the same as everyone else. The renown Bible scholar and translator Theodore Beza said this,

5:12 10 Wherefore, as by l one man m sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, n for that all have sinned: [font=Arial, Geneva]
([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]10[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) From Adam, in whom all have sinned, both guiltiness and death (which is the punishment of the guiltiness) came upon all.
([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]l[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) By Adam, who is compared with Christ, and similar to him in this, that both of them make those who are theirs partakers of that which they have: but they are not the same in this, that Adam derives sin into them that are his, even into their very nature, and that to death: but Christ makes them that are his partakers of his righteousness by grace, and that to life.
([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]m[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) By sin is meant that disease which is ours by inheritance, and men commonly call it original sin: for so he calls that sin in the singular number, whereas if he speaks of the fruits of it, he uses the plural number, calling them sins.
([/font][font=Arial, Geneva]n[/font][font=Arial, Geneva]) That is, in Adam. [source - [/font][font=Arial, Geneva]Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Romans 5". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". 1600-1645]

And, Mary recognized this fact and presented an offering after she gave birth as recorded at Luke 2:21-24, "[/font] And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: 23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:" (DRCB). One renown Bible scholar, John Gill, said,

According to the original institution of circumcision, (

Genesis 17:12) and which was strictly observed by religious persons, as by the parents of our Lord here, and by those of John the Baptist, (Luke 1:59) Hence the Apostle Paul reckons this among his privileges, that he could have boasted of as well as other Jews, (See Gill on Philippians 3:5). But it may be asked, why was Christ circumcised, since he had no impurity of nature, which circumcision supposed; nor needed any circumcision of the heart, which that was a symbol of? To which it may be replied, though he needed it not himself, it was the duty of his parents to do it, since all the male seed of Abraham were obliged it, and that law, or ordinance, was now in force; and besides, it was necessary that he might appear in the likeness of sinful flesh, who was to bear, and atone for the sins of his people; as also, that it might be manifest that he assumed true and real flesh, and was a partaker of the same flesh and blood with us; and that he was a son of Abraham, and of his seed, as it promised he should; and that he was made under the law, and came to fulfil it, and was obliged to it, as every one that is circumcised is; as well as to show a regard to all divine, positive institutions that are in being, and to set an example, that we should tread in his steps; and likewise to cut off all excuse from the Jews, that they might not have this to say, that he was an uncircumcised person, and so not a son of Abraham, nor the Messiah. [source - John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible]

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

The Ever Virginity of Mary

Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Active Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Active Member

Active Member