Just a note … when discussing creationism … creationist cites are, in fact, acceptable … we’re long past “In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth” …
Strange you should accept the virgin birth so completely yet disregard the creation of Adam …
When discussing research one should rely on professionals that did the research, then based their conclusions on the result of that research…not the other way around.
I thought DrDeth presented a constructive statement to the discussion at hand, and he gave a citation … seems like you and bonzer don’t like that citation and therefore DrDeth is … what? … not making a contribution? … threadshitting? … typing random characters? …
It is what it is … if we agree that the virgin birth was real, then did Mary (or Joseph) have other children? … if you don’t agree that the virgin birth is real, then there’s nothing to discuss …
Without the original manuscript, we’re off in King Author land anyway so maybe it’s okay to look at the whole spectrum of what is known, and what is believed, using all available sources …
I’m learning a lot in this thread, I’m glad I started it …
This has always puzzled me. If Mary is the “perpetual” or “ever” virgin, that means that she never had sex in her entire life. That would mean her marriage to Joseph was never consummated. If her marriage was never consummated, then technically she and Joseph were not married. And that makes Jesus the most famous bastard in all of history.
Except that she is often referred to as “ever virgin.” You can’t have it both ways.
Referred to as “ever virgin” in the Bible? Or just by Catholics?
Not anywhere is the New Testament she isn’t. This would certainly be news to Protestants and a lot of other Christians. And the references to her being a maiden/virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception are sufficiently dubious that a lot of other early Christian writers never addressed the matter one bit.
E.g., Paul was the wordiest of the New Testament authors and not once mentioned this miracle (or any other of Jesus’ miracles apart from the Resurrection and afterwards). In fact he stressed that Jesus was “born of a woman, born under law.” (Galatians 4:4.) Using a term that isn’t the same as maiden or virgin.
There are lot of internal contradictions in the Bible. Just look at the variance in who went to visit Jesus’ tomb on that Sunday and what they saw. 4 different versions. You can’t have all of them accepted as as the One True History.
Ditto the nativity tales of Luke and Matthew. Amazing differences between them and the other two Gospels ignore the whole thing completely. So you can’t just assume that somehow both are magically right, if either.
There are bits of historical stuff to be found, and some ahistorical matters as well. Surely no one believes that Jesus was talking about an actual Samaritan helping a particular person?
Well, those guys *are *professionals. Not all of them, some may be cranks. But if you read that particular article, it is well thought out.
The author is “Dr. Brenton Cook is associate professor of philosophy and of apologetics and worldview at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC. He teaches church history and the history of New Testament times at Bob Jones Seminary.”
So yeah, if we want a answer based upon religion, divinity, theocratics, he’s a fine source.
Now, if we are searching for a answer based upon IRL archeology, then try my last cite.
Magen Broshi is a well known scholar, having co-authored From the Beginning: Archaeology and Art in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem . Israel Museum is Israel’s national museum, the equivalent of our Smithsonian.
I Noticed neither bonzer nor you had a counter cite, and didnt discuss my other cite. :rolleyes:
Good question. In the Ukrainian Catholic rite, I’d say every other sentence pretty much.
Having grown up Catholic, the phrase “ever virgin” was pretty well-known, but it did lead to the logical contradiction I spoke of. As an adult, it makes far more sense to see biblical stories as mythology. Then you don’t have to worry about the logical contradictions.
Because irrelevant to our point about your incompetence?
I was under the impression that James the Just (aka James the Lesser) was Jesus’s half-brother. (The half-brother of the historical Yeshua bar Jospeh, aka Joshua son of Joseph, aka Jesus.) I don’t know if he was older or younger, though.
There’s a wide array of possibilities discussed on Wikipedia: James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia
Personally, I think he is Jesus’s brother. Period. No “Half”.
Nope. Comic-book law.
The authors of Matthew (and Luke) included the virgin birth story because they were trying to show that Jesus’ birth was prophesized in Isaiah, who wrote “Behold, the virgin shall bear a child.” The problem is that the word Isaiah used, which Matthew & Luke took to mean sexual virgin, is more accurately translated as “young woman” or “maiden.” So the irony is that Mary’s virginity at the time of Jesus’ birth is not really necessary to fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah.
In any case, the gospel authors attest that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. That’s all the Bible says about it. The “ever-virgin” Mary is a peculiar dogma of the Roman Catholic church and is not found in the Bible nor the ancient creeds of the church.
The context of the mentions of Jesus’ siblings in the gospels strongly implies that these are immediate family members of Jesus. In the context of the virgin birth, they are either half- or step-siblings and either can be plausibly argued.
I’m not sure how Creationism got into this. Even the Catholic church does not teach “Answers in Genesis”-type Creationism.
Thanks for that clarification. Do you have a source for this “virgin means young woman” in Isaiah supposition?
Yes, but the connotation that a Maiden is… a maiden is pretty strong.
Yep, which is why I say James, etc are Jesus’s brothers.
Somebody wanted to attack a cite I made as they had no better argument.
“Someone” pointed out that one of your cites (Answers In Genesis) was questionable at best because they only release results that agree with their already established beliefs. In fact, all who work for AiG have to sign a loyalty oath/statement of beliefs that precludes them from releasing/espousing anything that AiG doesn’t push as Gospel Truth. As I said in my post, “When discussing research one should rely on professionals that did the research, then based their conclusions on the result of that research…not the other way around.”
We are talking here about the Divinity of Christ, the Virgin Mary, etc. Thus it is pretty accepted for the purposes here that Jesus was the Son of God. That’s the premise.
Thus, since we are discussing theological matters, not archeological matters, a Theological cite is perfectly fine.
And indeed, the man who wrote that particular article did do the research and based his
conclusions on the research. It is by no means a point of Christian dogma that Josephus, a Jewish Historian, is reliable.
Sorry, but I cannot disregard the source of that cite, Answers In Genesis. If that information was available outside of that particular source it wouldn’t be as tainted, in my opinion.