A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect [James brother of Jesus Ossuary is a hoax-my title]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-eisenman29oct29.story?null ^ | October 29, 2002 | Robert Eisenman

[DonQ]

If the Gospels do not mention that Mary visited the Tomb that does not mean that she did not plan or attempt to visit. The Gospels tell us who reached the tomb first; once these first-comers had discovered the tomb was empty and the Roman guards asleep, I imagine that nobody else would bother to make the trip or that the Romans pretty much shut off access to the place.

Mary may not have been among the first to reach the tomb, but had heard what the first visitors found before she set out for it or at least before she came close to it, for a variety of reasons: She may have been staying indoors to observe shiva - an obligation not applicable to the women named in the Gospels as the first visitors, or perhaps she was staying someplace farther from the tomb than the others were, or her advanced age, or something along those lines.

[dcwusmc]

I am not trying to pick a fight here; I am genuinely curious. Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches (and believes) that Joseph stayed married to Mary for however long after Jesus was born and did NOT have normal marital relations with her? That such marital relations would not, in a time when birth control would have been unknown, result in other children being conceived? To me the notion is ludicrous to say the least. What would be the purpose of such a belief? What would have been the purpose of such a marriage? It boggles the mind.

[SoothingDave]

Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches (and believes) that Joseph stayed married to Mary for however long after Jesus was born and did NOT have normal marital relations with her?

Yes. That such marital relations would not, in a time when birth control would have been unknown, result in other children being conceived?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If they had had relations, they surely would have had other children. Since they did not have relations, they did not have other children.

To me the notion is ludicrous to say the least. What would be the purpose of such a belief?

The affirmation of the Truth.

What would have been the purpose of such a marriage?

To provide for the care, upbringing, and instruction of the Most Precious Child on earth.

Is it entirely ludicrous to think that a man and woman who were informed by God that they would be responsible for the Savior of the World might be a bit, um, focused on the task at hand?

SD

[dcwusmc]

Actually, yes, I am. If the RCC teaches that Mary was a virgin AND a married woman all her life, that is too ludicrous for words. Parents raise all manner of children all the time and still have time and energy for a normal husband-and-wife relationship. Where does the RCC come up with this notion? Aside from the fact that Mary's "cherry" would have vanished when her birth canal opened so that Jesus could emerge... unless you are saying that His BIRTH was another miracle that did not entail the usual things most births not Ceasarian entail, just so that she could stay virginal...

[SoothingDave]

If the RCC teaches that Mary was a virgin AND a married woman all her life, that is too ludicrous for words.

Everything has to revolve around sex, doesn't it? It's just impossible to believe that people can do without.

Imagine Joseph was much older, a widower. That he brought a young Mary into his protection because God told him to.

You Protestants seem so eager to have sex with Mary. Remember how the Ark of the Covenant caused boils and hemmorhoids to the unfortunate folks who "stole" it and touched it? Why? Cause it was God's seat. It was a holy thing.

Mary's womb was where God resided for 9 months. You do believe Jesus was always God right? Why would you want to risk defiling a holy place like that? And with your most prized possession, at that?

Parents raise all manner of children all the time and still have time and energy for a normal husband-and-wife relationship. Where does the RCC come up with this notion?

It's the Truth. There is no need to "come up" with the Truth. You do know that, don't you?

Aside from the fact that Mary's "cherry" would have vanished when her birth canal opened so that Jesus could emerge... unless you are saying that His BIRTH was another miracle that did not entail the usual things most births not Ceasarian entail, just so that she could stay virginal...

Without being any more vulgar than necessary, a woman's virginity is determined not by the state of her hymen, but by how many men she has had intercourse with. Mary remained a virgin even after Jesus passed through her.

What comes out does not make a woman an unvirgin, it is what goes in.

SD

[dcwusmc]

How can you show someone that what you say is "truth?"
Nor is it about sex, per se, but about what even the RCC champions, procreation or having a family. Something not feasible without sex. Especially in the days prior to artificial insemination and so forth. A man and woman were, essentially, directed to have a large family by the need, in most cases, to have hands to help with family work. Did not even Jesus follow in his (f)ather's footsteps of becoming a carpenter? In those days, as in many that followed, a large family was a NECESSITY. So kindly leave off the "wanna have sex with Mary" bs. And submit some backup for this otherwise ludicrous "belief" you want us to swallow. A woman's womb is not, that I ever heard, a "holy place." Even though Joseph and Mary were told by God what was happening, do you suppose they really comprehended the WHOLE of it? I seriously doubt it. I suspect this "belief" is no more than wishful thinking based on hindsight.

[SoothingDave]

How can you show someone that what you say is "truth?"

I can only invite you to contemplate the Truth. You must accept it or not by yourself. The one sure thing we know is that if I mention some Scripture or such, that someone else will attach a different interpretation to it.

Nor is it about sex, per se, but about what even the RCC champions, procreation or having a family. Something not feasible without sex. Especially in the days prior to artificial insemination and so forth. A man and woman were, essentially, directed to have a large family by the need, in most cases, to have hands to help with family work. Did not even Jesus follow in his (f)ather's footsteps of becoming a carpenter? In those days, as in many that followed, a large family was a NECESSITY.

And families, in those days were often larger than the "nuclear" family of today. The theory is that Joseph already had a family. That he married Mary late in life, to provide protection for her and the Savior. Joseph had many sons and daughters that were step-siblings to Jesus.

So the idea that a large family was needed doesn't fly here. There already is a large family.

So kindly leave off the "wanna have sex with Mary" bs.

Every Protestant I have met seems eager. They can't understand why her womb would be considered holy. Like you...

A woman's womb is not, that I ever heard, a "holy place."

Why don't you contemplate it for a while. Since you have "never heard" of such a thing, isn't it good to consider it? Wasn't God living there? If the Ark of the Covenant was holy and caused great harm to those who even touched it, why should Mary's "Ark" be any different.

You do believe that Jesus was God, right? Isn't a dwelling place of the Lord holy?

SD

[dcwusmc]

So where's the proof for your THEORY? That's my question. A theory is not a basis for doctrine. Never has been, never will be. It's too easily disproved when new evidence comes along. Unless you are willing to stop any and all research which MIGHT disprove your theory.

I tend to the "theory" that Joseph and Mary had an ordinary marriage and an ordinary family after the birth of Jesus. My theory does not one whit detract from His divinity, but it does fit in with the norms of the day and of humanity in general. Yours presupposes many facts not in evidence nor even necessarily in existence.

[Quester]

The one sure thing we know is that if I mention some Scripture or such, that someone else will attach a different interpretation to it.

What scripture would you mention ?

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)