Mary?

[gnostic]

The iconography prove nothing, if it was not made in the period of Jesus. They are often based on later tradition or legend, not found in Jesus' period. You should know better than to trust on iconography for basis of truth. They are often symbolic.

Do you believe in what people are claiming, having the blood of Jesus or one of the apostles? The Shroud? The nails of the crucifixion? The cross? Constantine the Great's mother claimed she have the original wood of Jesus' cross.

They only have symbolic values, but many of these symbols are based on baseless claims.

Jesus was often called Shepherd, which was probably true before his ministry, but he was sometimes symbolically described as the Sheep. Do you view him as a real sheep or symbollic one?

Showing them as old men iconographically, really prove nothing.

But if Mary had had other sons apart from Christ then they would have been automatically entrusted with her care after Christ's death, and yet the NT is clear that Christ entrusted her to John.

Then why is James and Judas seen in Mary's presence, if they were already grownup adults? They followed Mary, not the other way around?

 

[Mustard Seed]

I am one of those people who question everything and need fact to go on. Unfortinantly no one has been able to provide that.

Here is something for you to ponder on then, and that goes for everyone else aswell.....

FACT: The core of science was founded on men of religous and spiritual faith! A good example is Newton.

The more I contemplate science and its relation to God, a higher power or whatever you want to call it, the more I believe in a God. Science just proves more and more just how intricate and vast this "force" is!
Just remember God is just a word to describe the indescribable. I think everyone gets hung up on "religion" too much.
If we can agree on one thing, its that there is something greater out there that is at work. All this is not just random events....why??? Because something has to put in process these random events. This is where science ends and spirituality begins! And since science can never and will never explain this.....we must take a huge leap of faith.
Facts are finite and God is infinite.

ps. If I went off topic here sorry....delete it if you wish.

 

[lombas]

Still, I find it odd that in Luke 1,34 indeed it says Mary was a virgin at the time of divine conception, but then again, when Matthew and Luke give Jesus' forefathers, they include Joseph.

So there is a difference between an "earthly" father and "The Father". This difference is also made in Luke 2,48-49 where in 2,48 "father" clearly refers to Joseph and 2,49 to God.

48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

 

[James the Persian]

The iconography prove nothing, if it was not made in the period of Jesus. They are often based on later tradition or legend, not found in Jesus' period. You should know better than to trust on iconography for basis of truth. They are often symbolic.

It wasn't offered as proof that they were old but as evidence that this is what Holy Tradition contends. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Do you believe in what people are claiming, having the blood of Jesus or one of the apostles? The Shroud? The nails of the crucifixion? The cross? Constantine the Great's mother claimed she have the original wood of Jesus' cross.

Some yes, but not all. But I fail to see the relevance of this to whether or not Joseph was an older man with adult children at the time of Christ's birth according to Holy Tradition.

They only have symbolic values, but many of these symbols are based on baseless claims.

You claim. Some of them are far from baseless claims, though I'm not sure here whether we are talking of relics or icons or both.

Jesus was often called Shepherd, which was probably true before his ministry, but he was sometimes symbolically described as the Sheep. Do you view him as a real sheep or symbollic one?

There is a major difference between linguistic metaphor and the facts as claimed by Holy Tradition, and metaphor in iconography is every bit as clear as it is in written text - the age of Joseph and James is not metaphor.

Showing them as old men iconographically, really prove nothing.

Actually, it proves exactly what I intended it to prove, which is that Holy Tradition contends that Joseph was old and James significantly older than Christ. It doesn't prove Holy Tradition correct, but it wasn't intended to.

Then why is James and Judas seen in Mary's presence, if they were already grownup adults? They followed Mary, not the other way around?

Because Joseph was dead by then (also according to Holy Tradition) and she was being looked after by his relatives, Christ being an itinerant preacher. Even if Holy Tradition didn't have a specific answer for this, and it does, the point is far, far weaker than the one I made about Christ entrusting His mother to John after His death.

James

 

[gnostic]

Some yes, but not all. But I fail to see the relevance of this to whether or not Joseph was an older man with adult children at the time of Christ's birth according to Holy Tradition.

That relics, like iconography and tradition, can't be trusted to offer any fact. You can't take them (all of the above, eg. tradition, iconography, relics, etc) at their "face values".

Just how old is the Holy Tradition that Joseph was an old man (when he married Mary) or that James and Judas were old too? There were no age mentioned in the gospels or any of the letter of James and Judas.

I don't trust anything that come tradition comes from the 2nd century AD.

I still contend it was highly unlikely that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. Most couples would have more than one child, unless either Joseph had become sterile or Mary became barren. It was not against any law in Judaism to have only one child, in fact God's first command was that they have as many as they can (eg. the Creation of Man, Genesis 1:28). Even Moses' law tell that they should have as many children as they possibly can.

I don't contend that Mary was virgin before Jesus' birth, but that I find it nonsense that she remained so afterward. There were no Christian ideal of chastity within marriage before Jesus' ministry and it is illogical to think so before Jesus started preaching.

 

[logician]

Please Prove Jesus wasnt Born, Please Prove Mary didnt have a virgin Birth.. There is More Scriptural Proof and other DOcumental Prrof Supporting the Virgin Birth and Jesus, then there is any actual to disprove..wait there isnt anythign to disprove

SPeaking of which, none of the gospel writers could have witnessed the fairy tale of the birth of Jesus(the gospels were written much later than the time of the supposed birth of Christ). Just where did they get their information, especially since DNA testing wasn't up to snuff at that time?

 

[Moey]

No one can know for certan. Unless you trust the bible to be absolute fact...

 

[logician]

No one can know for certan. Unless you trust the bible to be absolute fact...

The bible was written by men with an axe to grind.

Don't trust em.