 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  Mayflower Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2002 Total Posts : 445 | Posted 10/24/2002 10:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | NOTE: Relocated post
========================================
Greetings:
I received the attached article in the mail, and thought others might like to read it, also.
<><
========================================
"BURIAL BOX OF JAMES -- THE BROTHER OF JESUS," Nov/Dec 2002 issue of 'Biblical Archaeology Review'
Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone
Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.
The Aramaic words etched on the box’s side show a cursive form of writing used only from about 10 to 70 A.D., according to noted paleographer André Lemaire of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (popularly known as the Sorbonne University) in Paris, who verified the inscription’s authenticity. The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D. Lemaire details his full investigation in the November/December 2002 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the leading popular publication in its field.
Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected.
In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone.
The new find is also significant in that it corroborates the existence of Joseph, Jesus’ father, and James, Jesus’ brother and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual--indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.
Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box’s limestone comes from the Jerusalem area. The patina--a thin sheen or covering that forms on stone and other materials over time--has the cauliflower-type shape known to develop in a cave environment; more importantly, it shows no trace of modern elements.
The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel. Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty. Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.
The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas’s tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate.
“The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology,” says Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. “It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world’s understanding of the Bible.”
[end]
Source: Nov/Dec 2002 issue of B.A.R. ['Biblical Archaeology Review'] ====================================================
URL:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 10/24/2002 10:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'm STILL a believer. I think it's James' box. Jesus had a brother. Big deal. Move on!
  
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Mayflower Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2002 Total Posts : 445 | Posted 10/24/2002 11:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | I agree with you. I believe (on "faith"), and do not require concrete "evidence" to know with 100% certainty that Jesus is Our LORD and Savior. And, because I desire all the world to come to know and love Him, I wept tears of wonder and joy as I read the recent reports of the ancient inscription -- knowing that this evidence might "tip the scale" for some nonbelievers.
I know that there are so many with the "Doubting Thomas" mindset, and if the discovery of the ossuary of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" ( ! )... helps EVEN ONE come to Christ -- then we all have cause to celebrate!
But alas, I truly worry that if the ancient burial box is (for whatever reason) deemed not to be "authentic", those of the Doubting Thomas mindset may become even more firmly entrenched in their doubt, and disbelief.
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/24/2002 7:22 PM (GMT -6) |   | I get stuff from many Catholic brothers and they are scrambling to protect the prepetual (hopefully I spelled that right!) virginity of Mary...it was pretty funny how quickly they jumped on it!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/25/2002 12:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: honorman: I get stuff from many Catholic brothers and they are scrambling to protect the perpetual virginity of Mary...it was pretty funny how quickly they jumped on it!
Honorman, I highly doubt that you have a grasp of what they regard visa-vis the ever-virginity of Mary. I highly doubt that you do.
But that aside. James being Jesus brother (which he was) doesn't at all have to mean a "full" half-brother. He certainly was NOT a full-brother, was he? Joseph certainly WAS Jesus Father; but just not by blood. Bless Joseph for doing so. (Tell him when you see him in heaven.)
Lets not be callous about what we don't understand. Its ver close to prejudice. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/25/2002 4:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I'm sorry, honorman. I know friends who were forbidden as children from even walking on the same side of the street as Roman Catholics. Its hard for me to even bet the hint in that direction that I felt in your post. O well. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/26/2002 2:36 AM (GMT -6) |   | Al: that is truly sad. But, I still find it sad that Catholics would be so quick to defend something that is totally lacking in scriptural evidence...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/26/2002 4:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | honorman: I still find it sad that Catholics would be so quick to defend something that is totally lacking in scriptural evidence...
Actually, honorman, the Bible says very little about Mary. But what it does say we Protestants tend to ignore almost wholesale. We give those scriptures a gloss reading, and then we move on. True?
(Anything below is said after first saying that the "Immaculate Conception" theory of the RCC a theological cure in search of a non-existant disease! Christ took on our "fallen" humanity. "Saving him from that by making Mary "without sin" is an erroneous idea. Agreed?) In the history of Christian theology "Mariology" is a division of "Christology." Statements made about Mary are actually motivated and controlled in their capacity as statements about Christ Jesus. (Nicene Creed: "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man ...") ("But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God'" (Matt 16:16). "God is the Lord and has revealed Himself unto us" (Ps 11:8). "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30).) For instance: Mary's title as "Bearer of God." (Hopko: . . . Jesus is not a "mere man" like all other men. He is indeed a real man, a whole and perfectly complete man with a human mind, soul and body. But he is the man which the Son and Word of God has become. Thus, the Church formally confesses that Mary should properly be called Theotokos, which means literally "the one who gives birth to God." For the one born of Mary is: "... he who from all eternity is God." )
Here's the theological watershed:
quote: Hopko:
Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople, were teaching that the Virgin Mary should not be called Theotokos -- a term already used in the Church's theology -- because it was claimed that the Virgin gave birth to the man Jesus whom the Son of God had become in the incarnation, and not to the Son Himself. In this view it was held that there is a division between the Son of God born in eternity from God the Father and the Son of Man born from the Virgin in Bethlehem; and that although there is certainly a real "connection" between them, Mary merely gave birth to the man. As such, it was held, Mary could be called Theotokos only by some sort of symbolic and overly-pious stretching of the word, but that it is rather dogmatically accurate to call her Christotokos (the one who gave birth to the Messiah) or Anthropotokos (the one who gave birth to the Man that the Son of God has become in the incarnation).
The pious conviction that Mary is "Ever Virgin" is that, piety. It is not formal doctrine. But let me show you something that I think will make sense to you. (1) Did Christ in the womb of Mary increase the effect of the fall on her. Of course not. That's the "during." But the second, the after, is interesting. (2) Did Christ's birth bring the pain of child birth (one of the curses of the fall in Genesis) to Mary? One can imagine anything in the purely natural realm. But the whole notion of the incarnation does, very much, shock us out of our naturalistic 'anthropocracy.' (I'm making up a word. ) This opens up a theological realm that is difficult to define. Christ, the baby Jesus surely was "like us in every way except sin." Yet, Jesus suffered hunger, pain, temptation. What kind of "now-but-not-yet" was present DURING his life? It was with the finality of the Crucifixion that Christ said "It is finished.", and the the fruits of that came first at the Resurrection. "Piety" with regard to Christ's Nativity -- which is what we are really talking about (not Mary persay!) -- quickly enters this realm where rationality finds choosing to be difficult and where only 'piety' can cautiously follow. The question seems, at least to me at this moment (I'm a lightweight.) to be a matter of to what degree Christ's birth was "under the curse." True? Anyone follow this? The third is also interesting: it pertains to the incarnation itself. (3) Christ was "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man ..."). Did Mary's becoming pregnant hurt? Seriously. The eternally begotten Son of the Father--BIG-"F" (without a mother) became man born of a woman (without a father--small "f"). I count three times that the piety of historical tradition has affirmed (in the Greek speaking East, and its icons) the "ever-virginity" of Mary: the incarnation, the pregnancy, and the birth of Jesus.
MARY NEEDED SAVING!!!
Matusiak writes: "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary had been "sin-proofed," so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior.
Its ALL about Jesus. Not really about Mary. (But then, in so far as it is--and it IS--about Mary, it is ALSO about US!!!)
But we Protestants get a rash even hearing Mary's name. Last years "Reformed Worship" magazine had an article with the impious title: "Mary, Mary, quite ordinary." That is a far bit from what SCRIPTURE says:
"My soul magnifies the Lord and my Spirit rejoices in God my Saviour." (Luke 1:47)
blessedness belongs to all who "hear the word of God and keep it." (Luke 11:27-28)
quote: Hopko:
. . . the angel said to her, "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. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her (Lk 1:26-38).
But us Protestants don't really like scripture. We like our Medieval rationality.
(Fun exchanging with you, honorman!)
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/26/2002 09:58:54 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/26/2002 5:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | honorman: "I get stuff from many Catholic brothers and they are scrambling..."
If you want to volley with your friends, take a lead from the quote in my post above:
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary had been "sin-proofed," so to speak, from all eternity, . . . why she would need a Savior?
Tell me how it goes, if you do.
Al | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 10/26/2002 6:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | First . . .
I'd like to say that I think its worth our while to understand that our faith in Christ as our Saviour doesn't stand on . . . faith per se; it stands on evidence, and clear evidence at that, that God has given us, all the way from the Old Testament to the New Testament to extra-Biblical sources, etc. We are Christians because God has spoken to us in space-time history, because He's sent Jesus--a real person in real-time history--to validate our need for deliverance.
Our "faith" comes in to play when we appropriate this evidence into our own lives. Our walk with God is based first on solid grounded evidence; our faith is the step we take daily when against all odds and reasons we trust that He will come through to the very end.
So for this box to be found (assuming it's authentic) is not to say something about our faith-ing in God, but in the initial evidence He has supplied which gives faith its place--the horse before the cart. Like TGB said, it's neither here nor there for him; he's a believer. However, TGB's faith is based (I'll bet) ultimately on the resurrection, an historical evidenced event. So he knows where he stands already. It is sad, however, that many Christians believe without having the slightest idea why they're to believe: "I just believe." Believe in what? Believe in Jesus? Believe in what about Jesus? That He died for our sins? Where'd one get that if it isn't from reliable, historical evidence? It all comes back to this, or at least it should.
There, I'm done!
Okay, second . . .
AL: Actually, honorman, the Bible says very little about Mary. But what it does say we Protestants tend to ignore almost wholesale. We give those scriptures a gloss reading, and then we move on. True?
[bStarkman: Well, I'd have to say that because so very little is given about Mary, there isn't a whole lot to invest in with regard to studying her. Perhaps her personal profile, her wonderful declaration of God's involvement in her and Israel's life, that she is a mother, and a few other things. I don't gloss over her, but I don't find a whole lot to drive a deep theological concept from her. But, that may be just something I've missed.
Great, the wife wants to use the phone . . .I WANT DSL!
For the frustration of one phone line in the house,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/26/2002 6:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Starkman: Well, I'd have to say that because so very little is given about Mary, there isn't a whole lot to invest in with regard to studying her. Perhaps her personal profile, her wonderful declaration of God's involvement in her and Israel's life, that she is a mother, and a few other things. I don't gloss over her, but I don't find a whole lot to drive a deep theological concept from her. But, that may be just something I've missed.
OK, you've exhaused your own imagination. Good job. Glad you gave it your all.
You could begin reading!
Begin with Byzantine liturgies. They ALWAYS reserve the last stanza as directed to the Theotokos. As I said above, it is REALLY a Christological statement, and it is also a soteriological one that applies to YOU and ME.
THOSE things, as I said, are not "figured out" from her story, but are instead drawn from the whole of the story of our salvation.
If you want me to post a few, I can.
So, when you say, "I don't find a whole lot to drive a deep theological concept from her" that is mainly true. (But you do miss a few things: you need to really dwell on the fact that someone could really grow spiritually to the point that she could say ""Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." (Lk 1:26-38) and not have it be rape. Her exercise of free will is remarkable.) But while it is "mainly" true, the fact that there is so much not covered by that narrow catagory (of what is unique to her in particular) shows how expansive the whole "mariological" realm of Christian theology is.
Again, begin reading Liturgy.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/26/2002 11:51:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/26/2002 7:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | Regardless, underemphasising is no excuse for over emphasizing, nor going beyond what the Bible says. The Bible, in actuality says very little about Mary, period. But you would never know it considering how the Orthodox and Catholics go on about her. You would think she was more than a woman (than again, perhaps she is). In the end, its all about Jesus, not Jesus's mother...I'm out...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/26/2002 7:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | Your Liturgy goes beyond scripture, attributes things to Mary that are not in scripture. It isn't a question of imagination, it is a question of enlarging a person's role that was never defined as such in scripture. Personally when I use my imagination, I use it in reference to God and who he is. The purpose of the Christian walk is to enlarge our understanding of who God is, his role in our lives, etc. Not imagine things that never happened. Not change the truth of what scripture teaches. I would suggest to you, AL, that you do less reading of liturgy and a little more in the scripture. That's where the infallible word is. Speak on the subjects scripture speaks about. Be silent where scripture is silent. Excellant point, Starkman...I'm truly out now...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 10/26/2002 10:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | As one who has engaged in a number of debates about the historical Jesus, I will go on record as saying this is an INCREDIBLE discovery, assuming it is authentic. Here's why.
The most difficult thing for skeptics do account for is the speed with which a simple Jewish carpenter "became" the Son of God, creator of the universe, saviour of humankind, in the span of a couple of years. legends usually take a long time, ESPECIALLY in Jewish culture. SO, some have supposed that the legend actually DID take a long time. To do this they suppose that Jesus was NOT a contemporary of Paul or anyone who wrote the New Testament. They suppose that, if he existed at all, he existed hundreds of years before Paul. All the Pontius Pilot stuff, as well as other historical markers, was added later.
The trouble is, Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus. If Jesus was James brother, and Paul knew James, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. To get out of this, the skeptic must say that the phrase "the Lord's brother" referred not to an actual brother, but to a certain sect of followers called "the brothers of the Lord."
Now, this is of course a wild stretch to start with. But the ossuary totally blows it away. It ANCHORS Jesus in first century Palestine.
I HOPE it turns out to be genuine.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/27/2002 10:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Now, this is of course a wild stretch to start with. But the ossuary totally blows it away. It ANCHORS Jesus in first century Palestine.
I HOPE it turns out to be genuine.
Doc

| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/27/2002 11:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | honorman said (and I agree): "In the end, its all about Jesus." But as Mary IS a Christian, it is also about her, and me, and honorman, and you... I hope that neither honorman not Starkman feel the need to CONTRASTED Liturgy with scripture. That is totally unnecessary! (But it gets me thinking.)
Scritpure and Liturgy go together, better than a hand and a glove. In fact, often they are the SAME thing. The liturgy of Jesus day WAS the scriptures. And it continued and continues to be in liturgical Churches. (Lutheran, Anglican, RCC, EO, OO) And in Presbyterian and Reformed churches the frist 150 hymns are the Psalter. And sometimes hymns "going beyond"; but what is wrong with that? Its called "hymnody.! Ask Issac Watts. Ask Fanny Crosby. Oh, more contemporary... Ask Keith Green. These wrote "hymns." That is, they wrote things that were not the exact words of scripture, but which communicate and explore the same ideas that scripture concerns with. That's a hymn. And for us here, lets define Liturgy as a mixture of scripture and hymn writing. Take for example the song (a favorite of mine) "Joy to the World." www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/o/joyworld.htm Seems to me that the verses of Joy to the world are 'hymnody' in practice, while the choruses, take a simple idea from scripture and develop it. These two things run concurrently, and weave in and out. That is often what Liturgy does. The verses might be taken directly from scripture (for instance, from the Psams or the Prophets, or the Gospels) with the hymn verses complementing and exaborating then, or dramatizing them. And the order can just as easily be reversed!
In "Joy to the World" the refrain "And heaven and nature sing.", while not repeated in each chorus, IS carried on inspirit through the whole song. I'm struck by the profundity of both heaven and creation, and if you will, both visible creation and invisible spirits (angels) joining, as they did outside Bethelehem, in this praise. Watts (who named this 1719 hymn "The Psalms of David) used it to summarize from scripture what he himself composed in words for the edification of his "congregation." Watts applies such topics as: earth, and heart; [mans] songs, and creation's fields, floods, rocks, hills and plains; fallen man and cursed creation; and the world's nations. And they are unified with "song," "joy," "blessing," and "wonder[ous] love."
We aren't the only ones who have to get used to Liturgy being "impure." The dessert monks didn't like the "sticheria" (hymn verses) that were written for the common people. To them, who were full time Christians, the Psalms were enough.The hymm verses were a distraction. But the way Liturgy is put together, the verses and the scripture are intermixed in an effective way. That is its minestry!!!
... MORE COMING ...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/27/2002 12:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | As honorman said: "In the end, its all about Jesus."
Scripture reference to Mary in Christian Liturgy of course can draw upon the New Testement. But it can also draw from Old Testement Prophesies. And a convenient poetic divice has always been to combine OT and NT in verse and chorus respectively. Neat!
quote: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).
quote: and Ezekiel 44:1-2 states: "Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the Lord said to me, 'This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.'"
These are scripture. The first proclaims the Incarnation. The second passage often referred to by the early Fathers with regard to Mary's ever-virginity.
Peter Gillquist writes: "In traditional interpretation of this passage, Mary is the temple and Christ is the Prince of Peace. The gate mentioned is seen as a picture of Christ's passage through the door of Mary's womb. You might not find that interpretation in some of today's commentaries, but it was held by the great majority of early Church Fathers, as well as many of the Reformation leaders."
WHILE WE ARE AT IT, THIS IS FROM SOMEONE'S POST ON ANOTHER SITE:
quote:
posted 04-25-2002 10:07 AM ------------------------------------------------
The historical church has ALWAYS maintained that Mary was "ever-virgin", and the reformers didn't change the doctrine... I'm not exactly sure when it was decided that she lost her virginity after the birth of Christ. Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403); Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419); Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444); and others.
The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as "ever-virgin."
The Protestant Reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:
Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
1) The Bible frequently speaks of the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus.
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.
Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
2) A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew's gospel. "He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus" (Mt 1:25, NAB).
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
.............MORE LATER..............
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/27/2002 10:01:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Modes of Thought Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 817 | Posted 10/27/2002 5:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | Starkman wrote:
quote:
First . . .
I'd like to say that I think its worth our while to understand that our faith in Christ as our Saviour doesn't stand on . . . faith per se; it stands on evidence, and clear evidence at that, that God has given us, all the way from the Old Testament to the New Testament to extra-Biblical sources, etc. We are Christians because God has spoken to us in space-time history, because He's sent Jesus--a real person in real-time history--to validate our need for deliverance.
Our "faith" comes in to play when we appropriate this evidence into our own lives. Our walk with God is based first on solid grounded evidence; our faith is the step we take daily when against all odds and reasons we trust that He will come through to the very end.
So for this box to be found (assuming it's authentic) is not to say something about our faith-ing in God, but in the initial evidence He has supplied which gives faith its place--the horse before the cart. Like TGB said, it's neither here nor there for him; he's a believer. However, TGB's faith is based (I'll bet) ultimately on the resurrection, an historical evidenced event. So he knows where he stands already. It is sad, however, that many Christians believe without having the slightest idea why they're to believe: "I just believe." Believe in what? Believe in Jesus? Believe in what about Jesus? That He died for our sins? Where'd one get that if it isn't from reliable, historical evidence? It all comes back to this, or at least it should.
There, I'm done!
Do you think that the “evidence” you speak of is such that it warrants the conclusion of “faith”? I mean how is “faith” different from rational conclusion to a logically assessed problem? For instance, what is it about faith (assuming the presence of conclusive evidence for the moment, though I don’t really agree with this) that makes it necessary for salvation for a believer, but the very same “evidence” is clear to Satan and does him no good at all? Is it just that we are sharper than Satan? He’s sorta dull and doesn’t do the math right?
Meph and I have been through this before, so maybe he’ll pipe up here, but I think that it is far from clear that most believers are believers on the basis of historical evidence. Rather, most are believers (I hope!) on the basis of the power of God in their lives. Paul seems to suggest this in:
1Cor. 2:1 “When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.”
You may call the resurrection a “historically evidenced event” but it is only that for the eyes of faith. There is always another explanation. Most people seem to opt for the other explanations. My point is, I believe that faith is presupposed when considering evidence of this nature. It does seem strange that some actually want to argue that God becoming a human being is a plausible idea. Unless something like that is actually revealed to us by God, my guess is that reason would consider this Jesus thesis as actually more of a blasphemous idea.
Don’t get me wrong, I do care about the historical facts insofar as we can know them, but they are not sufficient for faith.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/27/2002 5:44 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  Mayflower Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2002 Total Posts : 445 | Posted 10/28/2002 4:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  Modes of Thought Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 817 | Posted 10/28/2002 5:39 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Good point, SK.
Okay, you caught me. I should have given credit to SK, these are indeed his arguments more than mine. But likely he drew on others before him as well.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 10/28/2002 10:40:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/28/2002 7:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was reading Os Guiness' book The Long Journey Home and quotes CS Lewis who says: "Christianity claims to give an account of facts-to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however help it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all." The same Paul that Modes Of Thought quotes (interesting name), also stated that if Christ did not rise, your faith is in vain. So Paul himself planted faith in a historical evidence which happened. Therefore it should be able to be shown to be true in history. That does not, mean, of course, that every relic has to be true, nor that faith is dependant on them. But certain events must be true for our faith to be valid. And those events must be able to be valid historically to justify the faith we place in them. For instance, Jesus Christ needs to be a historical figure who lived and died for our sins and must be able to be validated as that historically, as a human person historically for our faith if one believed that for sins to be taken away a sacrifice must be made. Surely a myth cannot die for one's sins. And certainly the apostles believed that Jesus literally rose from the dead or they would not have had hope for their own resurrection. Other things could be said as well. My point is that these things can be shown to be historically true without any faith in who Jesus was or how they happened. And I think these things reasonably warrent faith. What happened at Jesus' tomb? What accounts for Jesus' sightings after his death? William Lane Craig and others have shown that the best explanation is that Jesus did die and did rise from the dead. I believe such things warrent faith. That doesn't mean that people will reject because they don't want to believe, but that is another story. Will plays a great part in what we do and do not believe. In the end, there must be balance, of course. All religions have an "experience" what they preceive as an event that justifies their beliefs. For instance, my aunt and uncle are Mormon. When I ask them what truth they have, they ended up describing what most Mormon's call "The Burning in the Bosom," an experience that, to them, makes true what they believe. But Mormons differ from from evangelical Christians in how they view God, so it cannot be true that both Christians and Mormons (and Hindus and Muslims, etc.) are all experiencing the same God (unless God likes to deceive), so one experience is valid and the other is invalid. How does one tell? One tells by the evidence ones faith is grounded in. The evidences keep the experience on the path of truth and the experience keeps the faith from turning into a lifeless set of principles. So Christianity is a historical faith in a God who wants a relationship with us. The evidence compells but doesn't make a person what faith. But it does compell faith.
Edited by - honorman on 10/28/2002 12:29:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/28/2002 7:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | I would ask, though, if facts are not sufficent for faith, then why believe at all? If there is not factual evidence for Christianity to compell a person to believe (and if you look at lives of converts like CS Lewis, who concluded that he was the "most reluctant convert", a person in whose lives the evidence does play a great role, a person who did not want to believe, but had to by the truth fo what he found), then I truly wonder why a person would believe this as opposed to something else? Would not a person simply believe what is easiest, what is most benefical to the needs of a sinful person? If faith is presupposed to a belief system, then why preach the gospel at all, because certain people will simply believe and others with never be compelled by the evidence? Sounds very deterministic to me...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/28/2002 7:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | Al: Thank you for showing me how wrong the reformers were on the subject of Mary. Your posts have given me more evidence for the need to be very vigilant in who I trust and what I believe. You have shown me the need to truly "test all things, hold fast to what is good." For me, your posts shows conclusively how the church has allowed a doctrine which has no basis in scripture to go from superstitution to dogma over the years and cloud the true perception (and true wonder) of who Mary truly was, an ordinary, sinful holy (yet everyday) woman who God called and who answered that call. The fact that so much has been written and argued over her is testament to the fact of how wrong the church has been. What an ahorrent waste of time! As such, I will no longer continue this conversation because I believe time can be better spent glorifying the God who called her, rather the servant God made. I am truly out...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  kerygma Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2002 Total Posts : 45 | Posted 10/28/2002 8:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | The best I've heard it put is that Christianity is based on faith, but not blind faith. In fact Christianity is different from other faiths in many dimensions and historical evidence is one of them.
There is growing historicity which adds to the reality of events we haven't experienced ourselves. (As evidenced by this ossuary, if indeed the consensus holds up on further inspection.) I mean, who among us is not thrilled at the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls? (By the way, anyone pick up on the fact that they were discovered by a shepard...in 1947? Remember what people were granted a nation in 1947? Hint-the Essenes responsible for creating the Dead Sea Scrolls referred to themselves as the "New Israel". Tell me God's finger isn't visible throughout man's history....)
By the way, the inscription reads James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. (Translated into English, naturally). On this type of vessel there should be no doubt what son of Joseph means.
And it would be a shame if some who want Mary to have always been a virgin (with no basis in scripture, save an earlier obscure reference), prevent the objective confirmation of this ossuary.
And Al-what is this "Protestants not liking scripture, but Medieval rationality"? Huh? Where did that come from? I don't know a single church going Protestant who doesn't own a Bible...but do know Catholics who don't own one. Makes we especially wonder about that statement!
In His peace,
Scott
"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19 | | Back to Top | | |
 | 45 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:56 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|