"Jesus Box" Exposed As Fake

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Please tell me this is humor.

[Boris Godunov]

Where did Jesus' brothers come from, if Mary remained a virgin?

[Shi Huangdi]

not my area of expertise in theology, but:

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/james.html

http://www.catholic-legate.com/qa/brosofjesus.html

(was half-trolling with my original post anyway)

[Ecthy]

interthread observation:

maybe John Turturro could tell us more aboutthe "Jesus" box

[Boris Godunov]

Matthew 12:46-50 indicates he had brothers.

What reason or evidence do we have to assume they weren't his biological brothers that isn't circular? None.

What reason do we have to assume Mary remained a virgin her whole life? None.

The notion that the mother of the savior had to be a virgin was a mistaken reading of a prophecy in the first place, IIRC.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good News, now protestants won't be able to use this to attack the belief of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God.

Shi:

Naw...

We just use the bible. Who needs a hunk of rock?

Why does Mary need to be a perpetual virgin?

[Lancer]

"Why does Mary need to be a perpetual virgin?"

Ditto

[History Guy]

Always been tradition that Joseph was a widower. I'd have to agree with Shi Huang.

I suppose, though, that makes me a crazy wacko fundamentalist who is something of an ignorant peasant for buying into this stuff, eh?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by History Guy
Always been tradition that Joseph was a widower. I'd have to agree with Shi Huang.

I suppose, though, that makes me a crazy wacko fundamentalist who is something of an ignorant peasant for buying into this stuff, eh?

nonononononono. You are taking the Catholic position, so you are not a fundie. The crazy wacko fundamentalists are always by definition the Protties.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by History Guy
Always been tradition that Joseph was a widower. I'd have to agree with Shi Huang.

What supports that "tradition?" Or is it one of those "traditions" that is really a "wishful assumption?"

What man, in any time, would remain married to a woman for 33 years (at least) and not have porked her at least once? What man in Biblical times wouldn't have deemed it his right to do so with his property?

[Ben Kenobi]

The crazy wacko fundamentalists are always by definition the Protties.

Yes, the Catholics prefer to mingle more.

[History Guy]

Why, I say, is it that the chaps who are religious are often painted in such broad strokes so as to suggest that they are all quite, quite mad, when it is quite obvious that religion is the one sane thing in the entire world?

[Shi Huangdi]

"What man, in any time, would remain married to a woman for 33 years (at least) and not have porked her at least once? What man in Biblical times wouldn't have deemed it his right to do so with his property?"

Joseph was canonized a saint by the Church for a good reason.

[serious] For the people who have asked me "Why perpetual virginity?" can read up those websites I linked to, and see how they respond to the biblical passages about Jesus' brothers. I can't answer those questions, I really don't know much about Marian theology. My post here was something of a troll, and it seems a few people bit.

Personally I don't really care all that much, the status of Mary's virginity isn't really important to my faith. I am willing to trust my Church on this one as I haven't really studied it enough to have too much of an informed opinion. There are some problematic elements in the Church though I will admit as far as this goes, some Catholics do let their Marian devotion go too far(For instance, there was this one guy claiming that nobody can be admitted into heaven without Mary praying for them). [/serious]

[The Mad Monk]

I am amazed at the lengths some people will go to, to "prove" the non-existance of Christ.

I discounted this item when I first heard of it, because early Christians believed that the end was very near, and were told to not put any value in material possessions; there is no sound reason to expect that any of Christ's immediate possesions would have been kept and preserved at that time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I am amazed at the lengths some people will go to, to "prove" the non-existance of Christ.

There is no such need. Afterall, Christians haven't been able to "prove" the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.