Posted by PS on December 11, 2002 at 09:13:12:
In Reply to: questions for Bill posted by giveawayboy on December 11, 2002 at 01:21:06:
: Also, I would urge everyone to stay tuned for Steve's aforementioned response, which he says is upcoming after his studies.
Well, actually I didn't exactly say that. I will gladly discuss this at church. I just have no time to craft a complete response here. Briefly...
I do not agree about the virginity being universally accepted and therefore needing to be adequately disproven. It is, in fact, the other way around. There is no canonical evidence of any kind that Mary remained a virgin, but there is substantial evidence to the contrary, that is, that Mary had sexual relations after Jesus and that Jesus' brothers were really brothers. The evidence is both literary and archaeological.
1. The recent find of the ossuary of "James the brother of Jesus" is telling. The dating of the ossuary AND the inscription has been validated. (We discussed this Sunday briefly.)
2. The gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic. There is no brother/cousin word usage blur here.
3. Matthew 1:24-25 NRSV
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
This is probably written at least 70 years after the fact of Jesus' birth it discusses. Why would any writer indicate that marital relations happened after Jesus' birth if they did not? Mary would have been dead and gone by this time, so her complete history would be well known, as were the many other traditions taught by the apostles which were eventually recorded. If the ongoing virginity of Mary were believed by any Christians in the first century, it is amazing how totally absent this fact is from the canonical writings of this period. Why would it be ignored? Truly such a notable fact would have been documented by the apostles or by Paul or by the gospel writers, if indeed it had happened. Fact is, the whole ongoing virginity tradition doesn't show up until much later, and now is presented as though it always was accepted from the beginning. To this tradition falls the burden of proof, and it does not satisfy it.