Was Mary Ever Virgin?

iris89 · Pit Bull Joined: 16 Nov 2002 Posts: 359

The Virgin Mary, Did She Remain a Virgin

Luke 1:26-31
“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.”

Many wonder about Jesus Christ being born of a virgin and whether his mother, Mary, remained a virgin after his birth; now we will let the Bible answer with respect these details. Luke 1:26-31 (above) reports that it was to a virgin whose name was Mary that the angel Gabriel carried the news: And “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Matthew 1:22-25 AV). Is this reasonable? Surely it was not impossible for the Creator, who designed the human reproductive organs, to bring about the fertilization of an egg cell in the womb of Mary by supernatural means. Marvelously, Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his first born heavenly Son to the womb of Mary. God's own active force, his holy spirit, safeguarded the development of the child in Mary's womb so that what was born was a perfect human.

However, the Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born as he had younger brothers and sisters. This was shown by, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and udas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” (Matthew 13:53-56 AV).

------------------
Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell."

iris89 · Pit Bull Joined: 16 Nov 2002 Posts: 359

The Virgin Mary Never Remained a Virgin:

Some maintain that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin, but that is NOT true. Here is some proof that Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) had fleshly half-brothers and that “blows your false tale of ever virginity of the Virgin Mary” right out of the window. This if from a historian who lived at the same time as Jesus did, i.e., his contemporary and not some so called Early Church Father a group that had many divisions among themselves and quickly left the true teachings of the Apostles due to their own teachings and heresies. No wonder, when the apostles were here, they had to constantly write letters admonishing congregations to faithfully remain in the teachings of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves).

Here is what a contemporary historian of the times, Flavius Josephus, has to say concerning Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) and his brother James:

Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.

1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. [Chapter 9 (first Part), The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus
Translated by William Whiston]

In addition archaeological evidence has been found proving James was Jesus’ half-brother:
(AP) - A burial box that was recently discovered in Israel and dates to the first century could be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus Christ, according to a French scholar whose findings were published Monday. An inscription in the Aramaic language — "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" — appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones. Andre Lemaire said it's "very probable" the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, just three decades after the crucifixion.

The first century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name," was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62. If his bones were placed in an ossuary the inscription would have occurred the following year, around A.D. 63.

Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated around A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.

There are numerous surviving manuscripts of New Testament portions from later in that century. Jesus was mentioned by three pagan authors in Rome in the early second century and by Josephus in the late first century.
Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, since he studies inscriptions only "as a historian — that is, comparing them critically with other sources."
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=science&cat=anthropology_and_archaeology http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html http://www.csmonitor.com/search_content/1022/p01s04-usgn.html

First, it would add to the scant extrabiblical evidence of Jesus' existence – though few today doubt such a man trod the Earth.

Second, it would renew a theologically charged debate about James's relationship to Jesus. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Jesus is the only son of Mary. If Mary was always a virgin, the argument goes, then James must actually be a cousin or half-brother or step-brother. The ossuary may be "the nail in the coffin of the 'cousin' argument," says John Meier, a New Testament professor at Notre Dame University. [Christian Science Monitor]

One person expressed the following opinion which contains a lot of common sense, “Well, maybe, but in my humble opinion, when Christ's groupies told him, "Yo Yo your mom and brothers and sisters are here" Christ asked "Who are my mother and brothers and Sisters?" and then explained that all who believed in Him were his brothers and sisters, but clearly the groupies thought Mary and the people she brought with her were his mother and brothers and sisters. I think this was part of the NEW DEAL Christ was teaching us, that once we abide in Christ we become brothers and sisters in Him. I'm kind of thinking, though don't really know for sure but am thinking before it was time for Christ to start teaching He was pretty much just Jesus the carpenter, and thought of as Joseph and Mary's son.” Based on, “46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!” (Matthew 12:46-49 AV), “ Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55 AV), and “ Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mark 6:3 AV)

Also the following argument used by some does not hold water as another individual pointed out:
For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time. >

Where does it say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

The Scripture does say "Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee thy WIFE, for what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit .had bidden him and took unto him his WIFE and knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son;" Matthew 1:20 - 25.

From Genesis we are told that a man is to leave and cleve unto his WIFE and they shall become ONE FLESH. Sexual intimacy is a requirement of being married. In fact Paul tells us that for a man to have sex with a harlot becomes one flesh with her, ie "married".

In fact in the OT if a man RAPED a virgin girl who was not engaged to another, he had to consider her his wife and provide for her.

It is hard to understand why many think would think that Mary is any less of a person in God's eyes if she had children by Joseph after the birth of Christ.

In fact the scriptures clearly say, “ And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Matthew 1:25 AV)

Also, Many have tried to obfuscate the issue of whether the Virgin Mary remained ever a virgin with confusing genealogies, claims of ambiguity of words, etc., but the simple truth is the contents carry the meaning of words in most languages and that is true in this case also. The following scriptures in their contents make it clear that she had other children who were the half brothers and half sisters of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), let’s examine a few that make this absolutely clear from the context:

“Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.” (Matthew 13:52-57 AV) leaves no doubt as to the relationship.

“And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (Mark 6:3 AV)

“ But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (Galatians 1:19 AV)

The context of these scriptures make it clear beyond doubt that he had half brothers and half sisters that were children of Mary his mother; therefore, she is proven not to have remained a virgin. Also, there is not a single scripture that says she remained a virgin.

------------------
Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell."

iris89 · Pit Bull Joined: 16 Nov 2002 Posts: 359

History and Reason Why The False Dogma of The Ever Virgin Mary Was Adopted

PART 1 – Details of the Dogma of The Ever Virgin Mary:
Let’s deal with the comment, “Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church, certainly understood the time peroid... Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380.... Helvidius first brought up the notion that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary...” Since this doctrine had already been officially accepted by the apostate church I would hardly have expected otherwise.

Many present day Catholic Apologist now maintain that all the early church fathers (ECF) believed this, but this is not the truth, “Many early church Fathers disputed Mary’s ever virginity, “No one again disputes that the clause "born of the Virgin Mary" formed part of the primitive redaction of the Creed, and the language of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, etc., is in thorough conformity with that of Irenaeus; further, though writers like Tertullian, Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary. “ [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]

In fact, the earliest of the ECF did not even mention her, “IN the sub-apostolic literature of the first half of the second century almost complete silence reigns concerning the Virgin Mary. The Didache, Clement of Rome, PseudoBarnabas, Hermas, Polycarp, the Epistle to Diognetus (in its authentic part), the earliest apologists, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, the surviving fragments of the Apologia of Hermias, Quadratus, Aristo, Miltiades, none of these mention her at all. Ignatius of Antioch, in his authentic letters, refers to her a few times, and Aristides once, in the Armenian fragments of his Apology to Hadrian; these are the first rudiments of the symbol "apostolic" that begin to outline themselves in opposition to the docetic theories of gnosticism. [The Virgin Mary: The Roman Catholic Marian Doctrine Contributors: Giovanni Miegge - author, et al. Publisher: Westminster Press Publication Date: 1955]. Why was this? We shall see later on that this false dogma evolved over time and changed its characteristics several times because it was entwined with another false dogma and had to take a back seat to it.

It became entwined with the false concept of ‘Theotokos’ or Mother of God which itself was entwined with the false dogma of the Trinity. “The first purpose of the title Theotokos ( Deipara, Dei genetrix) is not to glorify the Virgin Mary but to express in a term clear, impressive and popular the real divine humanity of Christ. God in Christ is made man in such a precise and realistic sense that Mary can be called His mother. This expression is a paradox which pleased faith, in that it could adore the humiliation of God come down into the world in "the form of a servant" ( Phil. 2:7) to save men. It does not seem, moreover, that through the fourth century the title "Mother of God" had any wide diffusion except in Egypt. Alexandria had already been the spiritual forge of a mystic christology radical in character in the preceding centuries, while in the discussions of the fourth and fifth centuries the school of Antioch and the Anatolian Church represented in opposition to it the standards of sober criticism and of rational theological temper.” [The Virgin Mary: The Roman Catholic Marian Doctrine Contributors: Giovanni Miegge - author, et al. Publisher: Westminster Press Publication Date: 1955]. However, the concept of ‘Theotokos’ is patently ridicules as “ Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” (Psalms 90:2 AV) clearly reveals that Almighty God (YHWH) has always existed; whereas, the Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) was the first of creation “ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Colossians 1:15 AV)

I N Catholic dogma the Virgin Mary is a copy of Christ, in His life, His person and His work. The principle of analogy with Christ, expressed clearly in contemporary mariology, has faithfully followed the elaboration of Marian doctrine through the centuries. Like the birth of Jesus, that of Mary was announced by angels and was an exceptional event in which the Holy Spirit had part. If Christ was conceived by a Virgin, Mary was conceived without sin. If Christ is like man in all things except sin, so Mary is in everything perfectly human except in sin. If Christ dwells in the fullness of divinity, then in Mary, through her Son, dwells the fullness of saving grace and supernatural life. Christ is the first-born of many brothers, but Mary is the first-born after Him, of the children born of Him, and, furthermore, she is their Mother, and to that extent she is no longer the mother of Jesus but His wife: she who carries in her fecund bosom all the generations of believers, she who after having given to the light the physical body of Christ, bears His mystic body in all the ages. Christ is the second Adam, Mary the second Eve. Christ is the fountain of living water which gushes forth into life eternal. Mary is the fountain of life, the spiritual mother of the new humanity. Christ is the true vine but Mary also receives this title ( John of Damascus). She comes adorned with other titles that the New Testament reserved for Christ; like Christ she is the head of our salvation-kephalaion soterias ( George of Nicomedia, James the Monk), saviour of the world ( Anselm, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus), propitiator--hilasterion--for our sins (Office of Lent), liberator from death, conqueror of death ( Gregory of Neo-caesarea), reconciler of God with men ( John of Damascus, Liturgy), mediatrix between God and men. [Cf. Benrath, Zur Geschichte der Marienverehrung, pp. 91 ff., which he borrows from the encyclopædic works of Marracci and Passaglia. ]

As can be seen both of these false dogmas, the ever virginity of the Virgin Mary and the Trinity became entwined by the false concept of ‘Theotokos’ which in reality ‘tied’ them together in the Catholic belief. With the false concept of ‘Theotokos’ or Mother of God, neither false doctrine could any more stand alone. Therefore, adopting one meant accepting both. To make these false doctrines more palatable to the masses the Virgin Mary was put on a new ‘footing.’ Mary was used as a new symbol, “The importance of Mary's virginity as a symbol of purity developed at the time of Saint Augustine, when the church began to emphasize the difference between the body and spirit. Matter (the body) was directly connected to our sexuality and was equated with sin. Mary's virginity emphasized her lack of sexuality and therefore portrayed her as sinless.” [http://www.uscatholic.org/2001/05/gya0105.htm]. This contradicted the Bible, The Bible says, “ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23 AV), however, “St. Augustine in a famous passage (De nat. et gratis, 36) proclaims Mary's unique privilege of sinlessness” [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York].

To back up these claims the church used the writings of St. Ephraen, “But in this, as in some other devotional aspects of early Christian beliefs, the most glowing language seems to be found in the East, and particularly in the Syrian writings of St. Ephraem. It is true that we cannot entirely trust the authenticity of many of the poems attributed to him; the tone, however, of some of the most unquestioned of Ephraem's compositions is still very remarkable.” [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]

However, even in the 9th and 12th. Century a Popes actually doubted the validity of this ever virgin Mary dogma, “Mary was a virgin until the nativity, but not afterwards. Joseph was really the husband of Mary, but Jesus was conceived "before they came together;" and he (Joseph) "knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son." This is an intimation that she brought forth other sons. The opposition is clearly put by Luke. Jesus was the first-born, or eldest son of Mary, but "the only-begotten son" of God. Therefore Mary had other children also. This is expressly stated by the Holy Scriptures. The Scripture, to which you [Anglican Bishop Durnford of Chichester] appealed have, I think, pronounced against you. So do the older divines of the Roman church. Alvarez Polagius, papal legate and plenipotentiary, wrote that "James the Less" was made the first bishop of Jerusalem, because he was the "brother to the Lord Jesus after the flesh." This he had learned from the ancient fathers, as you may see if you will consult Cyril of Jerusalem, who flourished about 370 A. D.: "Afterwards Christ was seen by his brother James, the first bishop of the parish. You, who are the disciple of such a great bishop, may well believe him when he says he saw the risen Jesus stand before him. Or will you say that He appeared to His brother James because of James' love to Him? - Well, but after all He was seen of Paul, who was an enemy to Him." "Pope Nicholas 1, in 858, issued a decree which is also embodied in the canon law, and is therefore part of the faith of the Roman church. It distinctly states and proves that Mary was married to Joseph, and did not remain a virgin. The canon law also embodies passages from St. Augustine, to the same effect ; from Pope Alexander III (in 1159); from Pope Innocent III (in 1243); from Pope Innocent IV (in 1243); from Ricardus (in 1280); while Hugo, Thomas Aquinas and Artesanus declare that it would have been a grievous sin if Mary had been betrothed or espoused and remained a virgin. The great "Abbas" Panormitanus, archbishop of Palermo, asserts the same. So does Angelus do Clavasio, as late as 1480 A.D. [How holy was the Blessed Virgin Mary?... Mary and Jesus. Right Hon. Lord Robert Montagu, London, 1889; in by Justin Dewey Fulton D.D., "Is it Mary or the Lady of the Jesuits?", Brooklyn, New York, January, 1890.; www.abcog.org/mary5.htm by Active Bible Church of God & Student Christian University Bible Association, PMB 190, 1634 E. 53rd Street, Chicago IL 60615, ]www.abcog.org]

Over this false dogma there was a lot of double talk, “It was Christ the wise men worshiped even when an infant and when Mary was in her prime and at her best. Let wise men continue in the good old path. For centuries the attempt has been made by the Romish church and all sympathizers with the "Harlot of the Tiber" to prove The Perpetual Virginity of the mother of our Lord. About the virginity of Mary up to the time of the birth of our Saviour there is no dispute. Matthew tells the story that is universally received and believed. He informs us that when Mary "was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily [privately]. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared unto him saying: Joseph, thou Son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son and he called His name Jesus" (Matt. 1:18-25). The evangelist that proclaims her virginity also declares her wifehood (Matt. 1:25), and that Mary was the mother of four boys, James and Joses, Simon and Judas (Matt. 13:55), and of girls as well (Mark 6:3), who lived and were known to the early church.” [Is the Blessed Virgin Mary a perpetual virgin? ... Is it Mary or the Lady of the Jesuits? J. D. Fulton, London, 1889]

“Essentially what we are trying to say is on the basis of available historical and scriptural evidence we cannot establish that Mary was an eternal virgin. It is probable and certainly possible but certainly not necessary. But then Roman Catholic Church being the "custodian of faith and revelation" has stipulated it. As in most of the later Marain doctrines, this doctrineof eternal virginity of Mary is derived from an ardent idolatorous approach to the figure of Mary and the lingering blasphemy of Gnosticism within the Chruch. It is not corroborated by the scripture nor are they ever referred to by any of the Apostles or anyone of the early Church Fathers before the second centuary. The important point is that such a position is not necessary for any christian doctrine.” [DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN DOCTRINES ON MARY - 4 , Prof. M. M. Ninan]

“In fact, there are six different Marys in the New Testament, though Mary the mother of Jesus is properly 'Mariam' and the other five are usually 'Maria' or 'Mary.' Still, this is not a steadfast rule since Maria and Mariam can be sometimes declined in the same way. So we shall list these six Mary's: 1) Mariam, the mother of Jesus. 2) Mary, 'the other Mary.' She is the wife of Clopas (John 19:25), she is the mother of Jacob the Lesser and Joses (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40) 3) Mary, the sister of Martha. She anointed Jesus' feet (John 12:3). 4) Mary Magdalene (Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1, etc.). 5) Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12). 6) Mary, who was a helper of Paul (Rom. 16:6). Knowing the differences in the Marys allows us to state emphatically that Mary or Mariam the mother of Jesus had at least seven children: Jesus, Jacob, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, Judas, and at least two daughters. These names come from the following verses and elsewhere:
"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mariam? And His brothers Jacob, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And are not His sisters all with us?" (Matt. 13:55- 56 AST).
"Is this One not the carpenter, the son of Mariam, and the brother of Jacob and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3 AST).

Now it is because of these verses that the Catechism has tried to confuse the issue by mentioning "the other Mary," because we learn in Matthew 27:56 that this Mary also had two sons named Jacob and Joses. But these Jacob and Joses are different from that Jacob and Joses mentioned as Jesus' brothers in the above two verses. There are four different Jacobs or Jameses in the New Testament: 1) Jacob, the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of the Apostle John. 2) Jacob, the son of Alphaeus. This is Jacob the Lesser, and the son of 'the other Mary,' and brother of Joses. 3) Jacob, the brother of Jesus and son of Mariam. 4) Jacob, the father of the Apostle Judas (not Iscariot). A detailed study of these four Jacobs throughout the New Testament verifies beyond any doubt that Mariam the mother of Jesus had a son named Jacob as did 'the other Mary.' They are not the same Jacob. The son of 'the other Mary' is the Lesser, and the son of Mariam and brother of Jesus is always identified as such. For example,” [Mary's Other Children, by Pastor V.S. Herrell]

The ECF were in no way in agreement on this. “This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the "sisters" and "brethren" spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar's "Early Days of Christianity," pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope”. [The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius., http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-08.htm ]

Some try and twist the facts by misapplying words as follows, “This word very specifically means "cousin," and this word was even used in the Greek Septuagint (Numbers 36:11). This Greek word is very important because many Catholics priests specifically tell their parishioners that the Greek language had no word for cousin and that this was the reason that the word brother had to be used. But this is nothing but shear ignorance and deception! In fact, ¢neyiÒj (anepsios) is not the only word for cousin; there are other words for specific types of cousin and other synonyms, etc. If Paul or Mark had meant that Jacob and Joses were simply kinsmen of Jesus, not necessarily cousins or brothers, then they could have used the Greek word suggen»j (sungenes) which means just a generic kinsman and is used by both Mark (6:4) and by Paul (Romans 9:3) as well as all throughout the New Testament. The story is the same in the Catholics' own Latin Vulgate. In Galatians 1:19, for example, the Latin word frater is used which specifically means brother. The word nepos, meaning cousin, could have been used, but it was not. Thus, there can be absolutely no doubt that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters who were the biological children of Mariam or Mary. This single doctrine is an excellent means of repudiating Catholics and the authority of the Catholic Church. If they cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Mary had at least seven children, then they cannot be intellectually honest enough to believe any truth.” [Mary's Other Children, by Pastor V.S. Herrell]

“Everything that our saint has written is, as it were, a summary of Catholic tradition on the subject that it treats; it is not an individual author, it is, so to speak, the church herself that speaks to us by the voice of her prophets, her apostles, her pontiffs, her saints, her fathers, her doctors of all nations and ages. No other book appears to be more worthy of recommendation in this respect than The Glories of Mary.’ “[1931 edition. Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn]

Therefore, the present trend of false dogma evolution within the Catholic church seems to be to put the Virgin Mary in place of God. “Thus are the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus fulfilled: "Certain senseless ones in their opinion about the Holy Ever-Virgin have striven and are striving to put Her in place of God" (St. Epiphanius, "Against the Antidikomarionites"). But that which is offered to the Virgin in senselessness, instead of praise of Her, turns out to be blasphemy; and the All-Immaculate One rejects the lie, being the Mother of Truth (John 14:6).” ["Zeal Not According to Knowledge" by St. John Maximovitch, ]http://orthodox.truepath.com/articles/catholicism/theology/ZealNotKnowledge.htm]

The Virgin Mary substituted for the pagan goddesses. Inherits the festivals and worship of the "mother of the gods." Rise of Mariolatry. Tho glorification of virginity. A re-action of pagan philosophers as well as of Christian theologians against sexual excesses. Reaction goes to absurd lengths. Original sin. Further development of the Virgin Birth doctrine. Mary's own immaculate birth. New doctrine accepted by Catholic Church. Mary's perpetual virginity. Buddhist parallel. Josoph's perpetual celibacy. The fate of a mildly sceptical monk. Legends about Mary's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Disputes about the Incarnation. How the doctrine was made obligatory, and enforced for hundreds of years….. Tho evidence of the Fathers of the Church that the Virgin Birth story was disbelieved by many Christians. Paul of Samosata. Heresies suppressed by the Catholic Church when it became the State religion of the Roman Empire. … [[SHAKEN CREEDS: The Virgin Birth Doctrine By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922, Chapter VII - THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE-MODERN SCEPTICISM ]

“Yes. Indeed, the worship of Mary has become at the present day, more than ever a sort of monomania in the Church of Rome, and is followed out with an utter disregard of common sense and decency and of ordinary prudence and discretion. The Rev. H. Seymour, MA, who spent some months in Rome, says:
‘The worship of Mary has become predominant, it is absorbing all else. Her pictures, her images her worship, her patronage, her intercession, her churches, her convents are all preferred to ought else. ‘As the serpent rod of Aaron swallowed all the serpent rods of the Magicians, so the modern devotion for Mary has absorbed all the offerings, prayers and devotions for Jesus.’ “– [Pilgrimage to Rome p. 464]

PART 2 – Why Was the Forever Virginity of Mary and the Trinity Politically Necessary and How They Evolved Co-Entwined:

Why was the Forever Virginity of Mary dogma and the Trinity dogma adopted and for what reason? To understand we need to look at the conditions of the Roman Empire in the early 4 th. Century. The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogmas of an ever virgin Goddess and the Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept an ever virgin Mary similar to the pagan’s ever virgin Goddess and a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor’s direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for an ever virgin Mary similar to the pagan’s ever virgin Goddess and a Trinity or a Duality.. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed.

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible “ Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4 AV), “ If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:19 AV). It was finally made firm dogma at Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. , but had really been dogma entwined with the Trinity from the Council of Nicea 325 A.D.

As stated above this dogma evolved in a gradual way from the Council of Nicea 325 A.D. forward, but was forced out in the open by a clash within the church between several powerful bishops that forced the church to call the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. to openly deal with it and set the future course of the church on the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.

With respect how this doctrine evolved, we need to consider two items about its early development from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“ More startling is the evidence of certain apocryphal writings, notably that of the so-called Gospel of St. James, or "Protevangelion." The earlier portion of this, which evinces a deep veneration for the purity and sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, and which affirms her virginity in partu et post partum, is generally considered to be a work of the second century. Similarly, certain interpolated passages found in the Sibylline Oracles, passages which probably date from the third century, show an equal preoccupation with the dominant role played by the Blessed Virgin in the work of redemption (see especially II, 311-12, and VIII, 357-479). The first of these passages apparently assigns to the intercession "of the Holy Virgin" the obtaining of the boon of seven days of eternity that men may find time for repentance (cf. the Fourth Book of Esdras, vii, 28-33). Further, it is quite likely that the mention of the Blessed Virgin in the intercessions of the diptychs of the liturgy goes back to the days before the Council of Nicaea, but we have no definite evidence upon the point, and the same must be said of any form of direct invocation, even for purposes of private devotion.” [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]

“It was natural then that in this atmosphere we should find a continually developing veneration for the sanctity and exalted privileges of Mary. In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we appreciate the exceptional position that she began, from an early period, to occupy in the thoughts of the faithful. Some of these frescoes, representing the prophecy of Isaias, are believed to date from the first half of the second century. Three others which represent the adoration of the Magi are a century later. There is also a remarkable but very much mutilated bas-relief, found at Carthage, which may be probably assigned to the time of Constantine.” [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]

A great controversy within the church forced the church to finally put into ‘black and white’ that which had evolved from the discussions at the Council of Nicea and at the Council of Constantinople with regard the false dogma of the ever virginity of the Virgin Mary as the church had to make clear the false concept of ‘Theotokos.’ “No sooner had the proud monk (Nestorius had been abbot of a monastery in Antioch) assumed his office when a certain curate of his domain ignited the flames of controversy with a sermon he delivered in the cathedral Church, wherein he said that it was incorrect to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos or "God-bearer." The congregation was infuriated, for they had always attributed this title to Mary. The Patriarch found it imperative that he come to his curate's defense, which he did in a series of lectures on successive days thereafter. The faithful sat stunned as they listened to their shepherd utter such blasphemies in fiery words like these:” [Saint Benedict Center, The Council of Ephesus, By Brother Michael, M.I.C.M. ]

IMPERIAL AND PAPAL CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNCIL
“The history of the intrigues by which both parties tried to get the emperor on their side need not be detailed here. The orthodox were triumphant at Ephesus by their numbers and by the agreement of the papal legates. The population of Ephesus was on their side. The people of Constantinople rejoiced at the deposition of their heretical bishop. But Count Candidian and his troops were on the side of Nestorius, whose friend, Count Irenaeus, was also at Ephesus, working for him. The emperor had always championed Nestorius, but had been somewhat shaken by the reports of the council. Communication with Constantinople was impeded both by the friends of Nestorius there and by Candidian at Ephesus. A letter was taken to Constantinople at last in a hollow cane, by a messenger disguised as a beggar, in which the miserable condition of the bishops at Ephesus was described, scarce a day passing without a funeral, and entreaty was made that they might be allowed to send representatives to the emperor. The holy abbot, St. Dalmatius, to whom the letter was addressed, as well as to the emperor, clergy, and people of Constantinople, left his monastery in obedience to a Divine voice and, at the head of the many thousand monks of the city, all chanting and carrying tapers, made his way through enthusiastic crowds to the palace. They passed back right through the city, after the abbot Dalmatius had interviewed the emperor, and the letter was read to the people in the church of St. Mocius. All shouted "Anathema to Nestorius!"’ [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V, Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York]

“The next act was the reading of the creed of Nicaea, and then of Cyril's letter to Nestorius. Cyril then rose, acknowledging the letter, and to put it to the bishops to vote whether the theology of his letter was in accord with the creed of Nicaea; 125 of the bishops followed him, each making profession of the Nicene faith, and affirming that the letter accorded with Nicaea. A demand was made for Nestorius' reply to the letter. When it was read, and the question put as to its accord with Nicaea, thirty-four bishops had individually answered in the negative when the patience of the assembly gave out. There was a call for a mass vote, and without a dissentient they shouted their views in a series of acclamations: "Whoever does not anathematize Nestorius, let him be anathema. Curses on him. The true faith curses him. The holy council curses him. We all say anathema, to his letter and his views. We all say anathema to the heretic Nestorius.... The whole universal church says anathema to the wicked religion taught by Nestorius." ‘[The text of this letter, Greek and Latin, is printed in Kirch, Enchiridion Fontium Hist. Ecclesiasticae Antiquae, pp. 461-62.]

“John then proposed the question [as to] what was to be decided respecting Cyril and his adherents; and several who were not particularly pronounced Nestorian bishops came forward to relate how Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus had, from the beginning, maltreated the Nestorians, had allowed them no church, and even on the festival of Pentecost had permitted them to hold no service. Besides Memnon had sent his clerics into the residences of the bishops, and had ordered them with threats to take part in his council. And in this way he and Cyril had confused everything, so that their own heresies might not be examined. Heresies, such as the Arian, the Apollinarian, and the Eunomian, were certainly contained in the last letter of Cyril [to Nestorius, along with the anathematisms]. It was therefore John's duty to see to it that the heads of these heresies (Cyril and Memnon) should be suitably punished for such grave offences, and that the bishops who had been misguided by them should be subjected to ecclesiastical penalties.

To these impudent and false accusations John replied with hypocritical meekness "that he had certainly wished that he should not be compelled to exclude from the Church any one who had been received into the sacred priesthood, but diseased members must certainly be cut off in order to save the whole body; and for this reason Cyril and Memnon deserved to be deposed, because they had given occasion to disorders, and had acted in opposition to the commands of the Emperors, and besides, were in the chapters mentioned [the anathematisms] guilty of heresy. All who had been misled by them were to be excommunicated until they confessed their error, anathematized the heretical propositions of Cyril, adhered strictly to the creed of Nice, without any foreign addition, and joined the synod of John."

The assembly approved of this proposal, and John then announced the sentence in the following manner:--
"The holy Synod, assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and the command of the pious Emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished to be able to hold a Synod in peace, but because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinate disposition, although we were already in the neighbourhood, and have filled both the city and the holy Synod with confusion, in order to prevent tire examination of your Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies, and have not waited for the arrival of the holy bishops of all regions, and have also disregarded the warnings and admonitions of Candidian, therefore shall you, Cyril of Alexandria, and you Memnon of this place, know that you are deposed and dismissed from all sacerdotal functions, as the originators of the whole disorder, etc. You others, who gave your consent, are excommunicated, until you acknowledge your fault and reform, accept anew the Nicene faith [as if they had surrendered it!] without foreign addition, anathematize the heretical propositions of Cyril, and in all things comply with the command of the Emperors, who require a peaceful and more accurate consideration of the dogma." ‘
[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html – A Catholic University source, Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies. & Henderson, Earnest F., Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1910) ] [Here the political intrigue in a so called church council exceeds anything noted in American political history, and yet they claim to be foot-step followers of Christ. Any careful reader will see that politics and what the emperor wanted and personalities was clearly more important than Christ and was the basis for all major decisions. The Bible clearly says, “ They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John 17:16 AV)]

“Next, the controversial title of Theotokos was proclaimed to be in harmony with the ancient Faith, and was furthermore declared to be the watchwood of orthodoxy, meaning that he who refused to grant this title to the Virgin Mary was deprived of the communion of the faithful. The writings of Saint Cyril on this theological point were further read, in which he stated: "It is not that a man was born of Mary upon whom the Logos then descended, but the Logos united Himself with the Human Nature in the womb of Mary, and thus was, after the flesh, born." ‘: [Saint Benedict Center, The Council of Ephesus, By Brother Michael, M.I.C.M. ]

“The phrase ‘Mother of God’ originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council which met in that city in 451, and in regard to the person of Christ it declared that He was, ‘Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the manhood.’

‘Roman priests call Mary the ‘mother of God’, a name impossible, illogical and unscriptural. It is impossible, for God can have no mother. He is eternal and without beginning while Mary was born and died within a few short years. It is illogical, for God does not require a mother for His existence. Jesus said, ‘Before Abraham was born, I am’ (John 8:58). IT is unscriptural, for the Bible gives Mary no such contradictory name. Mary was the honoured mother of the human body of Jesus – no more – as every Catholic must admit if he wishes to be reasonable and Scriptural. The divine nature of Christ existed from eternity past, long before Mary was born. Jesus never called her ‘mother’; He called her ‘woman’.’ “[From the booklet Is Rome the True Church? P20]

PART 3 – OT Scriptures Wrongly Used To Support The Ever Virginity of The Virgin Mary:

Some information on Old Testament scriptures used by Catholics to support virgin mary’s perpetual virginity but actually referring to a virgin Goddess of the pagans:
“References to goddesses in the Old Testament of the Bible are fairly common. That in Jeremiah 44, 17-19 is well-known: the writer is bemoaning the fact that the crops have failed since worship of the new god supplanted the leaving out of drink offerings for the goddess.
But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of own mouth, to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done...
...for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things...
One can argue about the original language, but only to the extent of whether the queen of heaven is "a goddess" or "The Goddess". The fact remains that the passage is suggesting that leaving out offerings might be a good idea. This passage on its own doesn't suggest that Mary is "The Goddess". But "Our Lady Queen of Heaven" is a fairly common designation for Mary in Catholic attributions (as indeed is "Our Lady of the Sea", a designation for Athirat, consort of El, who appears as Asherah in the Old Testament of the Bible).” [source = front door
ffetcher]

Letter to a Catholic Priest by a lady:
Dear Brother [Catholic Priest, name withheld]

In an answer to a previous question on the viriginity issue of Mary, you said, "<i>Once something is consecrated for a holy purpose it can never again be used for profane or non-sacred purposes. Is the conception of a non-Jesus child (any child that is not Jesus) a non-sacred event? I was under the impression that Catholicism held that every conception is sacred, thus the need for marrriage for sexual relations, and thus the prohibition of birth control and abortion.

Aren't all gifts from God sacred gifts? I have never so much felt the presence of God as when I gave birth to my daughter, and I would certainly think that all similar experiences would be considered sacred by the Church. (But as always, do correct me if I am wrong)Conception is a miracle and I thought all miracles were sacred. One more thing--you dont have to answer this on the public forum if you dont want to, but I would like to address this issue. You said in a previous response to me that it was required for Man and Woman to commit themselves to each other in a physical way (ie marriage) before God. Now I ask, why is a legal ceremony the only way to fulfill this obligation? What about a handfasting ceremony in which a public declaration of commitment and fidelity are still made but not always necessarily followed by legal procedings? Surely nomadic peoples without written law had marriage ceremonies, as you suggested, but were there papers to sign and so on? I doubt it. It seems to me it is the ritual that is of importance, as you yourself suggested. I would just like clarification on this issue.

My sincere gratitude, [name withheld] [http://www.mothersmagic.net/witches/wicca/debate4.html]

PART 4 – Information From Secular Sources:

Some information on this from secular sources, excerpted:
NEWS BRIEF: "Among all the women who have ever lived, the mother of Jesus Christ is the most celebrated, the most venerated...Among Roman Catholics, the Madonna is recognized not only as the Mother of God, but also, according to modern Popes, as the Queen of the Universe, Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom, and even the Spouse of the Holy Spirit."[ (Time Magazine, "Handmaid or Feminist?", December 30, 1991, p. 62-66)].

BIBLE BRIEF: Jeremiah 7:18, "... the women knead the dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger!"
Could the Roman Catholic Madonna (Mary, physical Mother of Jesus), who is described in the above Time Magazine article as the "Queen of Heaven", be the same as the "Queen of Heaven" which was helping provoke God to anger and judgment in Jeremiah 7:18?
First, let us examine the ancient Queen of Heaven. Most of this information is taken from Alexander Hislop's book, "The Two Babylons", 1917. Hislop traces the Babylon-ian worship of the Queen of Heaven back to the days follow-ing the death of Nimrod. The dating of this event is not known exactly, but seems to date 400+ years after the flood. After Nimrod's death, his wife, Semiramis, was determined to retain her power and wealth. She concocted the story that Nimrod's death was for the salvation of mankind. Nimrod was touted as "the woman's promised seed, Zero-ashta, who was destined to bruise the serpent's head, and in so doing, was to have his own heel bruised." [(p. 58-59 in The Two Bablyons) by Reverend Alexander Hilsop]

In his most blasphemous book, The Armageddon Script, Peter Lemesurier writes enthusiastically about the worship of the Great Mother Earth. He writes as though he is an astronaut in a spaceship in orbit around our planet. "As they rounded the barren lunar globe for the...last time, and the resplendent half-earth once again rose from behind that now familiar curved and rocky horizon, what they saw coming up to meet them was strangely familiar. An image straight out of the racial memory. A god out of the world of the archetypes. It was none other than the rounded form of the Great Mother, Earth herself, clad in the same flowering robes of shimmering blue and white that had been those of mother-goddesses of earth and sky throughout man's history - and not least his most recent mother-goddess, the Virgin Mary herself..." (p. 245-6).[ The Armageddon Script, Peter Lemesurier]

Peter Lemesurier, as a Pagan worshipper, has no difficulty recognizing the truth that the worship of the Virgin Mary is ancient Pagan idolatry. Therefore, non-Christian Pagans the world over will have little difficulty accepting the worship of the Roman Catholic Virgin Mother.
Another New Age writer, China Galland, a practicing American Buddhist, has written a very revealing book entitled Longing For Darkness. Galland enthusiastically establishes the commonality between the Virgin Mary and other Pagan goddesses. [Longing For Darkness. Galland]

Virgin birth, Pagan sun gods and harvest gods were traditionally born of virgins, often a virgin temple priestess... [http://religion.8m.com/rel_ten_things.html]

Of that one which I desire to liberate, mounts towards me the scent of her perfume which impregnates the sepulcher. Long ago she was named: ISIS, queen of the benevolent springs, COME TO ME ALL YOU WHO LABOR AND ARE HEAVY LADEN AND I WILL GIVE YOU REST, to others: MAGDALENE, of the celebrated vase full of healing balm. The initiated know her true name: OUR LADY OF THE CROSS.
Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh mention the association and assimilation of Isis with the Virgin Mary, and with other virgin and mother goddesses such as Astarte. After merging Mary from Magdala, Mary "Magdalene", and Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, they eventually conclude that Mary Magdalene is being substituted for and raised over the traditional Lady of the Cross, the Virgin Mary, and state that: [source = The Goddess of the Priory by Stephen Anderson]

Temple prostitution was not limited to 'pagans', however, as in Rome, a “sacred brothel”, the Holy Sisters of the Order of St. Mary Magdalene, was established by Pope Julius II and remained popular through the reigns of Leo X and Clement VII. Pope Innocent III declared that there would be special praises in heaven for a man who married one of Rome’s prostitutes known as “virgines”. In the Middle Ages, both the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene were patron saints of prostitutes. Similarly, both medieval nuns and prostitutes wore veils. The line from Shakespeare “Get thee to a nunnery!” referred not to a convent, but to a brothel. [source = Walker, 615, 146.
Barbara, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets.]

The Christian mystic Origen (who castrated himself, perhaps in imitation of ancient goddess-worshipping rites like the followers of Attis, or even following a hidden tradition of Christianity was an especial devotee of Mary Magdalene, and said she was eternal, existing from the Creation which would seem to identify her with the Gnostic conception of Sophia, wisdom, or like Simon the Magus’ Helen. He also explicitly identified her with the Bride in the Song of Songs and as Ecclesia (“the Church”, one of the titles of the Virgin Mary), the Bride of Christ [source = page 60, Malvern, Marjorie, Venus in Sackcloth].

Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem (4th c. AD) had a vision of the mother of Christ appearing to announce: “I am Mary Magdalene because the village where in I was born was Magdalia. My name is Cleopa. I am Mary of James son of Joseph the Carpenter.” The Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene are made the same in the Gospel of Bartholomew and the Book of the Resurrection also by Bartholomew. M.R. James, the antiquarian best known for his ghost stories, says that such “reckless identification of the Virgin Mary with all the other Maries of the gospels is characteristic of these Egyptian rhapsodies.” [source = page 39, Malvern, Marjorie, Venus in Sackcloth].

For those why may doubt what I say and for those who would like to further research the subject, Resources, books and Links: [Note; all direct sources previously dealt with my direct notation of source]

1)http://members.fortunecity.com/braveneil/vmarypagan.htm
2) http://pagans.foolmoon.com/holidays/lady_day_the_vernal_equinox.htm
3) philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm (The Two Babylons, by Rev. Alexander Hilsop)
0http://www.christianwicca.com/essays/goddess.html [Christian Wicca: The Goddess]
4) http://www.geocities.com/be_witch_me/yule.html [pagan virgin Goddess that gives birth to God]
5) http://religion.8m.com/rel_ten_things.html [The Ten Things Christians Stole From The Pagans]
6) http://www.montana.com/bupc/whores/marywors.html [Mary Worship]
7) http://pub16.board.com/frealismrealityasreligion.showMessage?topicID=966.topic [The idiocy of the Trinity (Xians are Closet-Polytheists):]
8) http://www.rennes-discovery.com/Rennes_Alchemist/goddess_priory.htm [The Goddess of the Priory
by Stephen Anderson]
9) http://www.stormpages.com/askawitch/questions/witchy/philosophy/darkraven.html [Ask a Witch - Questions: DarkRaven in Malaysia]
10) http://www.nisbett.com/spiritualism/virginmary/mary16.html [Is the Virgin Mary Dead or Alive?]
11) http://www.geocities.com/salemmagick/ostara.html [Ostara (Oh-star-ah) was the name of the Virgin Goddess
or green goddess]
12) http://www.widdershins.org/vol5iss3/05.htm [Invoking the Sacred Cheerleader]
13) http://www.ku.edu/~medieval/melcher/matthias/t25/0063.html [Cult of the Virgin Mary]
14) http://www.ravenfamily.org/ffetch/questing/goddess.html [The Goddess Speaks]
15) http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics/syllabi/greekreligion/Virgins.htm [The Virgin Mary]
16) http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/goddess_4_the_crone.html [The Goddess--IV, The Crone]
17) http://www.virginmarybook.com/watch/index4.html [The Virgin Mary Watch]
18) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/virgin_birth.html
19) http://www.tagnet.org/apopka/danstudy/rev13a.htm [Revelation 13]
20) http://www.squiresweb.com/turkey/jgjourn/day15.htm [Turkey - Day 15 Ephesus, Virgin Mary's House]
21) http://www.mothersmagic.net/witches/wicca/debate4.html [Conversations]
22)www.near-death.com/experi...igen6.html (comments on Council of Nicea 324/325 AD)
23)www.yashanet.com/library/antisem.htm (details of political intrigue & paganism of Coun. Of Nicea)
24)members.aol.com/davecrnll/corrupt4.html (paganism into Christianity, Council of Nicea 325AD)
25) www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm (Catholic take on the Council of Nicea and its canons)
26) www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt (minutes of the Council of Constantinopile in 381AD) www.tellway-publishing.com ("Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt – one of the best)
27) "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit) by Georgio Blandrata and Francis David 1566 A.D.
28) Benko, Stephen. The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots in Mariology. New York: E.J. Brill, 1993.
29) Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Her Share in the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Greco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992
30) Staples, Ariadne. From Good Goddesses to Vestal Virgins: Sex and category in Roman Religion. London: Rutledge, 1998.
31) Warner, Marina. Alone of All her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976.
32) http://www.abcog.org/mary4.htm
33) http://www.christianseparatist.org/briefs/sb3.20.html
34) http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-08.htm
35) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6868/sh0000a.html
36) http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=mary1
37) http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=mary2
38) http://orthodox.truepath.com/articles/catholicism/theology/ZealNotKnowledge.htm

------------------
Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell."

iris89 · Pit Bull Joined: 16 Nov 2002 Posts: 359

Burial Box of Jesus's Brother [HB]:

(AP) - A burial box that was recently discovered in Israel and dates to the first century could be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus Christ, according to a French scholar whose findings were published Monday. An inscription in the Aramaic language — "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" — appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones. Andre Lemaire said it's "very probable" the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, just three decades after the crucifixion.

The first century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name," was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62. If his bones were placed in an ossuary the inscription would have occurred the following year, around A.D. 63.

Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated around A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.

There are numerous surviving manuscripts of New Testament portions from later in that century. Jesus was mentioned by three pagan authors in Rome in the early second century and by Josephus in the late first century.
Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, since he studies inscriptions only "as a historian — that is, comparing them critically with other sources."
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=science&cat=anthropology_and_archaeology http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html http://www.csmonitor.com/search_content/1022/p01s04-usgn.html

First, it would add to the scant extrabiblical evidence of Jesus' existence – though few today doubt such a man trod the Earth.

Second, it would renew a theologically charged debate about James's relationship to Jesus. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Jesus is the only son of Mary. If Mary was always a virgin, the argument goes, then James must actually be a cousin or half-brother or step-brother. The ossuary may be "the nail in the coffin of the 'cousin' argument," says John Meier, a New Testament professor at Notre Dame University. [Christian Science Monitor]

This find will be able to identify James as the first leader of the Christian church and the brother of Jesus.

The 2,000-year-old ossuary—a box that held bones—bears the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." This besides many manuscripts offers evidence.

Andre Lemaire, a paleographer at the Sorbonne University in Paris (École Pratique des Hautes Études), first saw the artifact and its inscription while examining the relics of a private collector in Jerusalem. He dates the box, which was empty, to 63 A.D. Lemaire calculated the statistical probability of the three names' occurring in such a combination as extremely slim.
"This is probably going to be the biggest New Testament find in my lifetime, as big as the Dead Sea scrolls," said Ben Withering ton, a New Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky.
As many religions rise or fall upon historical evidence, this find will validate the truth of the stories told and written.

The find is described in the November/December issue of Biblical Archaeological Review.

Protestants traditionally read the Gospel accounts calling James the "brother" of Jesus as meaning Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and then had James, and at least three five other sons and daughters, with Joseph.

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, on the other hand, teach Mary's "perpetual virginity", meaning she and Joseph never had marital relations.

The Orthodox believe Joseph had James by another wife, and after she died he married Mary - making James Jesus' stepbrother. Catholics commonly hold that James was a close relative of Jesus, perhaps a cousin.

For more stories check out nationalgeographic.com, newscientist.com or Biblical Archeology Review

------------------
Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell."