http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62428-2002Oct22.html

By Richard N. Ostling AP Religion Writer Tuesday, October 22, 2002; 2:20 AM

WASHINGTON -- Archaeologists are expecting a long-running debate over the reported discovery of a first-century inscription naming Jesus of Nazareth.

Writing in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Andre Lemaire of France's Practical School of Higher Studies says it's "very probable" that an inscription on a burial box for bones refers to Jesus of Nazareth and was written around A.D. 63.

The inscription reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." That would fit the New Testament account that Jesus had a brother named James, and the tradition that James was the son of Joseph, the husband of Jesus' mother Mary.

The sensational claim, if true, could become one of the great archaeological discoveries in modern times.

But there's this major question: Did this box name Jesus of Nazareth or some other Jesus? After all, that name was common in the first century, as were James and Joseph.

Lemaire pins his circumstantial case on the unusual naming of both the father and brother on a burial box, known as an ossuary. There's only one other known example with three names, so he figures something about the brother must have stood out. Jesus would certainly qualify.

However, archaeologist Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University noted at a news conference Monday that the brother might have been named because he conducted the burial or owned the tomb.

Under Christian teaching that would rule out Jesus of Nazareth, who rose from the grave and ascended into heaven decades before James was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62.

Two poles of reaction quickly emerged Monday.

Rev. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky, another news conference speaker, sided fully with Lemaire's claim. He's a conservative evangelical who takes the New Testament as reliable history.

But Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach, attacked Lemaire's claim, calling it "too perfect." He figures some "extremely clever" forger must have produced the box. That fits Eisenman's skeptical belief that the New Testament is highly fictional. He even thinks "Jesus' existence is a very shaky thing" - something few other scholars would agree with.

Whether Jesus of Nazareth is the person named, Lemaire and the archaeology magazine offered a detailed case against forgery.

The magazine said two Israeli government scientists did a microscopic examination of the artifact's inscription and surface patina. They concluded the box is ancient and there's no evidence of modern tampering.

Lemaire said the handwriting is clearly in the style of the first century A.D. and another specialist, the Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer of Catholic University of America, agrees. Moreover, Lemaire notes that ossuaries were only in use from 20 B.C. to A.D. 70, fixing the time frame.

Another issue: The owner required Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box's location was not revealed. Nor is anything known about its history over the past 19 centuries.

Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks said the owner bought the box about 15 years ago from an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem who said it was unearthed south of the Mount of Olives. The owner never realized its potential importance until Lemaire examined it last spring.

"Something so startling, so earth-shattering, raises questions about its authenticity," Shanks acknowledged.

Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, since he studies inscriptions only "as a historian - that is, comparing them critically with other sources."

The archaeology magazine is negotiating to display the box in Toronto during a major convention of religion scholars in late November, and possibly in the United States.

James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.

Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated around A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.

There are numerous surviving manuscripts of New Testament portions from later in that century. Jesus was mentioned by three pagan authors in Rome in the early second century and by the Jewish historian Josephus in the late first century.

-- lbj (lbj@aol.com), October 22, 2002

Answers

Oh! Really??? And what happened to "Sola Scriptura"? do you actually need more than the Sacred Scriptures to believe Mary was not a Virgin? Or a better one, would you actually believe in something else than the Scriptures to prove any of your assertions? If you do, then my dear BROTHER, what does that make you?

Even if an angel came down here, took me to every one of the tombs keeping the bones of Jesus's "brothers", took me back in time and showed me how they were called HIS flesh and blood brothers, and swore SHE was not a Virgin I wouldn't believe him. Is that simple. Why would I?, when She herself has come down here and called herself the Immaculate Conception and a Virgin.

In the Love of Jesus.

-- Cristian (gabaonscy@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

Elmo,

The fact of Mary virginity in the conception of Jesus is stated by Mt,1 18-23 and Lk 1, 26-38 (there is a hint of it in some ancient versions of Jn 1,13: " He whom neither blood nor flesh but God begot"). The obvious independance of the accounts of Mt and Lk lead us to the conclusion that this informtion goes back to a more ancient tradition on which both depend.

-- Elvis (Banned@mean.banned), October 22, 2002.

If this find is authentic, it is really exciting, but in no way demonstrates the Catholic Church is wrong in Her teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is an ancient tradition that seems to hold to the idea that Joseph was much older than Mary and actually had children from a previous marriage (he was a widower).

The tombstone states "James, the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus," not the son of Mary. (Yes, I realize it would be very rare to mention the mother in this context, but my point is still valid.) Also, the names of James, Jesus and Joseph were rather common at the time. An archaeologist states that a the combination of these three names as father/son/brother combination in Jerusalem around the year 63 AD to be around 20 statically. Also note that the term "brother" in the time of Jesus was used to be more than just blood brother. It could refer to a cousin, or in this context, a follower of Jesus was commonly referred to be a brother of Jesus. So a cousin of Jesus or a follower of Jesus with a father named Jesus would even be much more likely.

There are a lot of questions about authenticity of this find and in no way could be used to scientifically contradict with certainty the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary. And if you do really do your research and use reason, it makes a lot more sense to place your trust in the Catholic Church as the source of truth on faith and morals than this or any archaeological finds (which, surprisingly, consistently validate the Church’s teachings), scientific theory, and even the Bible with individual interpretation of verses taken out of context. I'd be more than happen to take up this point here or in another thread (preferably) if anyone is interested.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 22, 2002.

Wait and see, friend. What you initially read in the press and what eventually comes out as truth are often two different things. If you're patient now, you'll have less to take back later.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2002.

That was directed to LBJ btw.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2002.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Eusebius, the well-known, and much acclaimed church historian (by both Protestants and Catholics) records that Joseph had several children by a prior marriage, making this James possibly a STEP-brother, if it's authentic at all.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 22, 2002.

Here's a section of interest from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the life of Joseph & Jesus' "half-brother", although I don't believe he would BE a blood relation to Jesus at all:

It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2002.

I don't see how it would prove anything, one way or the other, about Mary's virginity. After all, the words say "son of Joseph" -- not "son of Joseph and Mary".

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), October 22, 2002.

Just found an aritcle on Catholic Answers about this. Seems James Akins and I have the same take, but he has more details!

God Bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 23, 2002.

I would like to point out the fact that the bible says Jesus was THE FIRSTBORN, that did not say he was the only child and Jesus was older then James. Either you believe the bible or you don't,but the Catholics are wrong on a lot more issues besides this one.Look at the book of Revelation and find out who that Mother of Harlots is.

-- Tommy Sands (BibleBeliever2@aol.com), October 30, 2002.

Tommy "my castle is bulit of" Sands Im trying real real hard not to make a degrading comment relating to your mother being the harlot and you being living proof of it- as that would be uncharitable of me. Dont encourage me please. Bye Bye fool

Grrr and we smite Jean, yet tolerate these goons? :(

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2002.

maybe this righteous anger thing isnt the way to go... "bulit"! Tommy look buddy people like you are a dime a dozen around here at times. All trying score cheap shots with fairy tales and myths they believe out of ignorance.I forget you cant help having missed out having parents who loved you, who educated you, and who taught you manners. I need to remind myself that you have to live with your feeble mind everyday of your life. Surprise me... Im bored enough to listen.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2002.

See Chris Ive proven your anger theory wrong, I failed completley to engage or help Mr Sands!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2002.

Oh, Kiwi--
If a lurking anticatholic can't have a little fun here from time to time, how are we going to cash in on Jesus' prophesy? I looked for the one in which He said ''Rejoice, when others curse you, and bring false witness against you, etc.,'' and I haven't got patience right now. Best I can offer is, ''Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, - - go out into its streets, and say, ''The dust from your town (Tommy Sands) we shake off against you. Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand. I say to you it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.'' YOUR town, Tommy. (Wherever Tommy Sands hangs out. Lol!)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.

Hi Gene,

the point Im trying to say is that when we berate others for being "evil" with anger in our hearts we tap into something that is helpful for no one. Despite how we can interpret certain sections of the bible or CCC. Anyone can twist whatever they want from the Bible.

The overarching meaning, message and spirit means we should avoid this path whenever possible. Our responses are universially evil themselves, from "rolling with pigs"(me) to "juvenile wank"(you) to "prick" (Jean).

Those who believe the Church can, and indeeed must not change in anyway are so wrong IMHO. This does not mean it has to contradict past teachings but that clarrification can continue to evolve and the institution itself must adapt to a changing world. Of course there will always be a time lag, but change must come. Its sad to see it took such monumental abuses inside the heirachy for the wheels to begin to turn.

I share Skoubouys wonderful postive hopes for the churchs future on another thread somewhere and the amazing places Pope John Paul II is leading us.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2002.

Hi, Kiwi,
I agree, no good man ought to despise his neighbor for any reason. There's a time to struggle and attempt to win him over. If we fail, let the matter drop and trust in God. Angry words offend God.

If the change we expect in our Church is radical, it proves she is open to worldly influence. If it's born of human compassion and learning, God inspires it without our human unrest. Notice in the Old Testament, the Israelites who grumbled were usually punished. Those who relied on God with strong faith were exonerated. The Church is not our province, Kiwi. It belongs to Christ. He lets either one or another man serve; allowing only what He pleases to come about. It's called providence. Our part is to watch and pray. Protest if necessary, but never arrogantly, as many American Catholics have recently chosen to do. God despises a proud man.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Id just posted an especially foul worded reply to a traditionalist Catholic mailing list so I was feeling rather guilty.Again I think back to the certain truth about there being a time in every mans life when he has to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats. It is in our nature and to deny it seems kind of strange and unhealthy, in moderation! I see Ive contradicted myself, the theory is good(be like Jesus the whole time) but in reality.... Thanks for the old testament quotes I have yet to read any of it*blushes* nor have I progressed beyond Luke*goes an even deeper red*

Hmmm pehaps less interest in philosophy and ethics and more in the Bible from me. God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 31, 2002.

Kiwi, You are a true son of Saint Peter, the fisherman.

He had that impetuous streak that once in a while annoyed Jesus Christ. Willing all the time to fight for his Lord; and in the pinch denied Him 3 times before the cock crowed. --How do we explain this? Men who are aggressive really don't impress God. But God wants us to be men when the occasion calls for it.

I'm a great admirer of David King of Israel. He conquered Goliath. He went on to become a king; then a lowly sinner. A man who loved beautiful women too much. And great for leading armies and ruling over men. He was the male line ancestor of Jesus Christ, a man's man.

He loved God with all his might. Just like Saint Peter, the humble fisherman. When Jesus asked Peter, ''Peter, son of Simon, dost thou love me?'' Peter answered, ''Lord-- Thou knowest that I love thee.''

To me, there is the great lesson of holy scripture, to men who glory in their manhood. Jesus is the king we all adore.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Some thoughts of a few saints who taught that St. Joseph was a virgin.

St. Jerome was the first to propose that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph compose a family distictly marked by virginity. When he was adressing the heretic Helvidius, who denied the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, Jerome writes;

'You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on acccount of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born' (The perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, 21).

What he in effect is suggesting a method of interpreting the scrptural data about St. Joseph in a way that harmonizes with the virginal calling of Our blessed Lord and His mother. The gospels are silent on a previous marriage of St. Joseph. He directs our attention to the life of perfectly lived chastely lived by Jesus and Mary, which speaks so eloquently of their relationship with God. In the life of Jesus, we can see how this chasity proclaims that whole purpose of His entering the world was to fulfil the will of His heavenly Father. In the life of Mary it proclaims that she who conceived the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit now has been sanctified, and whose body is entirely consecrated to God. So this virginal vocation of both Jesus and Mary, Jerome inmplies, is what needs to guide our interpretation of Joseph. In this context, it would be suprising for Joseph not to be a virgin. It would also be suprising that the Virgin Mother who begets the virgin child, was not protected and sustained by a husband who was virgin as well;That the divine calling of virginity was not oresent throughout the family. Thus we discern who St. Joseph is through the one for whom he is husband, and the One for Whom he is foster father. The sacred virginity of their lives tell us of the sacred virginity that God must have wanted to characterize Joseph's life as well.

St. Jerome's interpretations begins a trend that becomes dominant in Western authors. Scriptural comentators from Bede in the seventh century to Rabanus Maurus in the ninth, basing themselves on St. Jerome, spoke of the life-long virgnity of St. Joseph, there was such a common conviction about it that St. Peter Damian could say," If it does not suffice for you that not only the Mother is a virgin, there remains the belief of the Church that he served as father is also a virgin" (Filas,99).

St. Thomas, about two hundred years later, adds that further confirmation of St. Joseph's virginity is to be found in Christ's words to His Mother standing beneath the cross. There, St Thomas implies, God reveals the kind of person he wishes to care for Blessed Mary. Whom does He choose?-a virgin, John the apostle. In his commentary on Galatians, St. Thomas taclkes the issue of children of Joseph by a deceased wife. He pointly states; "But this is false, for if the Lord did not wish his virgin Mother to be entrusted to the care of anyone but a virgin[i.e., the apostle John], how could he have suiffered that her spouse was not a virgin, and such would of been persisted? (Ad Galatas 1:19) And this, St Thomas lead us to relize, should be persuasive. Such an act of Christ on the cross is just as much a work of Divine Providence caring for the Blessed Virgin as the Providence. He was exerising when providing her with a husband, The Providence of God on the cross entrusting His Mother to a virgin reveals the Providence of God in preparation for His incarnation.

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), October 31, 2002.

David,
I'm impressed by this wonderful post. Yes, I have to concurr as you do, with the grace and assurance of Saint Jerome. He spoke as clearly for the Holy Spirit, I think, as for himself.

God always makes His infinite wisdom shine for men. I think this was one instance, and all for the glory of His beloved Son Jesus; indirectly for His Holy Family, of which Saint Joseph was the head. These are great things for us to contemplate on, David. Thank you /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

David thanks for the info... isnt great just to log on sit back and soak up all the good stuff like your work above. The lazy mans guide to being a Catholic know all!

Gene thankyou for your kind words but Im just mixed up and confused and little bitter and sad. re Mr Sands I am all bravado, cold blood and shark eyes. I feel like Im missing out on the "real things" I used to have or didnt care about, intimacy and love, what is truth, what is meaning, all that stuff.... and I havent had a dream in a long time.

Peace and Love Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 01, 2002.

Thanks for the kind words St. Gene :-) and Kiwi.

But I should clarify myself and say that St. Joseph's virginity has never been considered part of the depoist of faith, and therefore obligigatory for us to accept. There are those who continue to view St. Joseph as an aged widower, as many of the Greek fathers taught, a tradition maintained in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

We find the marriage of Joseph and Mary as true and real as any. Granted, their special relationship did not corespond to a typical marriage with respect to conjugal relations. And it was because of such pure and Holy love, says Pope John Paul II, that God so wonderfully used Mary and Joseph to reveal His intent to purify and sanctify family life;

"We see that at the begining of the New Testament, as at the begining of the Old, there is a married couple. But whereas Adam and Eve were the source of evil which was unleashed on the world, Joseph and Mary are the summit from which holiness spreads all over the earth. The Savior began the work of salvation by this virginal and holy union, wherin is manifested his all-powerful will to purify and sanctify the family, that sanctuary of love and cradile of life." (Guardian of the Redeemer,7)

May the holy family bless you both.

David

-- David (David@excite.cm), November 01, 2002.

One thing I just find a little bit unusal is that the church wouldn't have sufficient material on Jesus' family. Would such information not have been clearly understood by Peter and handed down ? And not just have it kept in Aramic text to leave us guessing ? Sure, it might have been non-essential at the time, but wouldn't they have known for sure whether James be cousin or step- brother ? Thoughts ppl ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Ive heard of an age gap in realtionships but 80 years? Im sceptical. Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old

Olly Id agree the confusion and lack of information around something as seemingly simple as Jesus and his immediate family seems bizzare...unless something was trying to be covered up? That is a fair conclusion to make given the evidence presented here so far surely?

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 03, 2002.

Oliver,
God inspired the evangelists to write His Word. You seem to think the scriptures didn't do enough.

The Church was NOT left guessing. In fact, through her Sacred Tradition, many truths are known to the world about Mary, her chaste husband Joseph, and the Holy Childhood of Our Lord. They don't have to appear in writing to be true.

I say they're truths well-known to the world; but still there are adamant opponents of the truth. They want to believe ONLY what they think is so, with no teacher. Through sola scriptura; a completely unscriptural way of interpreting the truth!

These are the ones who insist Mary sinned. Just because they say so! That Christ wasn't her only son; because they see one word-- brother-- in English, as if the evangelists spoke English. Is it their fault one day there would be anti-Catholic sects and writers of Catholic-bashing tract propaganda? The Church taught only the truth, by Scripture and Tradition; what every one of us knows about Mary and Joseph.

Just at the end of the holy prayer called the Litany of the Saints, are the sacred words, ''Blessed be Saint Joseph her most CHASTE spouse.''

Joseph was chaste because the Church acknowledged it. From the first days of the gospels. Otherwise she would not call Joseph chaste.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Kiwi:
Why is it a ''fair'' conclusion to think a cover-up was necessary?

We know the truth. It's been known since the Church first started. You're only referring to the gospel narratives. These haven't deceived anybody into false conclusions. Mary was a virgin and stayed a virgin. She was given in marriage by God, to a virginal man. A ''just man'' says the scripture.

Did you know the most ancient traditions maintain the gospel of Saint Luke was partly revealed to the evangelist by Mary herself? It must be so, because who else but Mary would have been witness to the annunciation, and Mary's visit to her cousin Elizabeth, the circumstances surrounding John the Baptist's birth, the nativity, and everything relating to Christ's early childhood?

Only Mary. We can extrapolate, without lamenting it hasn't been included in the Bible. The logical reason we KNOW about Mary's perpetual virginity, and the conditions of her matrimony with Joseph. Of Joseph's own chastity, and the grace that God gave him, to be Jesus' foster father. The reason is, she revealed it to the apostle Luke; and he did to others among the disciples and saints of the early Church. We know it because it comes from the very source; Our Blessed Mother! She is not one whom we should suspect of sinfully misrepresenting herself. --That is, unless we hate the Catholic Church!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Gene I have no doubts about the virgin birth obv, I do not know enough about the concept of perpectual virginity nor Joseph to make a comment but it all seems a bit murky to me probably becasue I havent read enough about what scripture and tradition says. I certainly dont hate the Catholic church though!!!I apologise if my ignorance offended you or our Holy Mother. God Bless.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 03, 2002.

Of course not, Kiwi. I didn't insinuate you have a bone to pick with the Church. I mean, only an enemy of the Church would suggest Mary herself could be guilty of anything. And there's nothing especially odd about her virginity. Nor anyone else's virginity. We have all of us met virgins. Mary was and still is a virgin; not a hard thing to understand. Joseph was a ''chaste'' husband, which is more extraordinary. He was not priveleged to consummate the marriage. He co-operated in preserving her innocent and he was also pure.

It goes without saying all this is by the Will of God. With special grace God afforded the pair, set apart for the love of Jesus Christ, each lived in self-denial and chaste love. It makes for very rewarding contemplation, for those who live our faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Mary was not a virgin---get over it. The whole "virgiity" misconception is derived from a translation error; the ancient Greek word for "young girl", "unwed woman" and "virgin" were used in similar contexts oftentimes. The original Hebrew scripts read 'young woman' and it was incidently translated as "virgin". Just because someone does not beleive that Mary was a virgin does not make them evil, hell-bound, etc...If anything is just demonstrates the common perception that Christians and Catholics are narrow-minded and self- righteous (and quite frankly reminds me of times such as the Inquisition, where anyone who even looked different, let alone held different beleifs, were thought to be in league with Satan).

-- Dominatrixx (Dominatrixx77@hotmail.com), November 11, 2002.

"Joseph was a ''chaste'' husband, which is more extraordinary. He was not priveleged to consummate the marriage." Are you aware that Jewish custom during those times allowed for the copulation with female slaves and concubines, and show me a Bible passage in which sleeping with prostitutes is expressly forbidden. First, Joseph most likely did have sex with Mary (there, I said it!), but if he didn't, then he was probably getting his jollies from some whores on the corner of Nazareth! *LOL

-- Dominatrixx (Dominatrixx77@hotmail.com), November 11, 2002.

Eugene, basically my thoughts were on this line : I found it rather unusual that it was not known by the catholic church the actual family tree immediately surrounding Jesus. To be more to the point, about whether James was a cousin or a step-brother of Jesus.

If the perpetual virginity of Mary has been held so vigorously by the church, wouldn't such details be incredibly important ?

I just thought that if Peter was there at the beginning, which he was, no doubt, wouldn't such details have been clearly communicated through the church throughout history ? Does it not strike you as being odd at all that the "one true church" didn't communicate such details ?

Btw i'm not trying to start any debates, i'm just communicating a line of thought regarding genealogy and tradition.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 11, 2002.

Dominatrixx,

You wrote, "Mary was not a virgin---get over it. The whole "virgiity" misconception is derived from a translation error; the ancient Greek word for "young girl", "unwed woman" and "virgin" were used in similar contexts oftentimes."

Please answer me, 1st when was the Bible "translated", 2nd when did the Church start to believe Mary was a virgin?

To you I would say: Mary IS a virgin --- get over it. It is more miraculous that you actually believe this, even though the concept of Mary NOT being a virgin really only started to become wide spread in the 1500's, after the reformation!!! So just logically - not even using Scripture - if the Church has held this belief from the very beginning (it can at least be traced back to the first couple of centuries), that is the same Church that compiled the Scriptures and hand copied them for 1 millennium, and only did the concept of Mary NOT being a virgin stir up and spread after the reformation (only a short 500 years ago) I find that it insults YOUR intelligence, and that of many others, to not deduce that Mary really WAS a virgin.

Sure, I can go into a Bible and pull up Scripture to “prove” that Mary was a virgin, but that has already been done. Dominatrixx, do some research (outside of the usual anti-Catholic hogwash), and you will come to see the truth! The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church handpicked the Scripture that you are reading and hand copied it for a very long time, and you’re telling us that they are mis”translating” it? It is unfortunate that when the Protestants left the Church, they had to reinvent the wheel. The millennium and a half that they left behind set them back even farther!

One more time:

The Catholic Church, which has been around since the formation of the Church before Pentecost (When Mary was still alive!), and through whom the Scriptures were gathered, selected, and compiled to form the Bible, and has held the same beliefs up to the present day, believes that Mary was a virgin!

The protestant Church, which left all history behind during the 1500’s, used the long since translated Bible, and little more than I- search material to reformulate the “Christian” theology (or reinvent the wheel), concluded that Mary must not have been a virgin! (uhh, a little late don’t ya think?)

Which one do you think is correct?

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 11, 2002.

Oliver,

You wrote: "One thing I just find a little bit unusal is that the church wouldn't have sufficient material on Jesus' family. Would such information not have been clearly understood by Peter and handed down ? And not just have it kept in Aramic text to leave us guessing ? Sure, it might have been non-essential at the time, but wouldn't they have known for sure whether James be cousin or step- brother ? Thoughts ppl ?"

That is a good thought, Oliver. In fact it IS quite certain that the Church DID have a clear understanding of the Genealogy of Christ's Family! That is why, from the very beginning, the Church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary! The fact that it makes simple, logical sense that Jesus' closest friends would know his real "brothers" or "cousins", combined with the fact that the early Church believed in Mary's virginity confirm FOR CERTAIN that Mary really was a virgin! Doesn’t it just make logical sense, Oliver? It didn’t need to be written, if they ALL believed it! If the early Church, who knew Christ’s personal life better than all of us would come to profess and believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, it just seems like the odds would be AGAINST the notion that Mary had other sons! The fact that the early Church believed Mary was a virgin confirms that when the Gospel writers wrote indeed they were referring to Jesus’ cousins (or quite possibly His close friends – like when I call you my “brother”)! The shoe fits a lot nicer when you put these two pieces together!

Thanks for bringing this up, Oliver.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 11, 2002.

Our Moderater should help here with not one, TWO favors. The first is, Change the title of this thread. It states ''The Truth-- Mary wasn't a Virgin.'' Well; it isn't the truth. -- Then we have some Nov 11th posts here from a floozy. ''Dominatrixx'' is by definition a sado-masochistic rough whore. It won't take much imagination to see who this girl thinks she is.

Her grossly insensitive statement: ''Joseph most likely did have sex with Mary (there, I said it!), but if he didn't, then he was probably getting his jollies from some whores on the corner of Nazareth! *LOL'' --Shouldn't be tolerated; so Mod ought to delete this tripe. ( There-- I've said it! Floozy ! )

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 11, 2002.

bump

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 12, 2002.