Brothers of Christ for Mickey

[ckempston]

So were Mary and Joseph married before she was pregant with Jesus,or after?..

They were betrothed before. Betrothal (engagement) and marriage are two separate things. Marriage being the point at which normal marital relations start (consummation), hence the surprise at her pregnancy before they were able to come together.

1 Corinthians 7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

 

[fbl9]

They were betrothed before. Betrothal (engagement) and marriage are two separate things. Marriage being the point at which normal marital relations start (consummation), hence the surprise at her pregnancy before they were able to come together.

1 Corinthians 7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

St.Matthew 1:24"So Joseph ,arising from sleep,did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,and took unto him his wife."So this is when they came together.

 

[ckempston]

St.Matthew 1:24"So Joseph ,arising from sleep,did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,and took unto him his wife."So this is when they came together.

Well, that’s not what it says. What are you getting at?

 

[NDfan]

My wife is the older of two children. Her brother is the firstborn son. Being the Firstborn son conveys certain rights and privelages that we will discuss later.

Ralph right on point. I knew someone that lost their true firstborn son during delivery. She was trying to get her second son first born rights which I believe is possible in the Jewish culture.

During that scene, no other children are mentioned. It says that his parents went to Jerusalem every year, not his family. If you read it, it says that each thought that he was with the group. There is a very good chance that Joseph was not right beside Mary the whole time. Each thought he was with the other.

Haven’t you ever wondered why the other kids were not mentioned?

The Greek used there doesn’t use a generic group like a crowd. It actually uses the suggenes word which typically refers to family and is also used to refer to cousins. So definitely Mary and Joseph were traveling with their relatives. I’m not so sure it’s significant that the other children are not named. But then again one could argue that it’s interesting we don’t read about them here.

 

[fbl9]

Well, that’s not what it says. What are you getting at?

nevermind.

 

[NDfan]

Honestly you really lack any reverence in saying this.But to make sure i will ask you this .Would you and your spouse engage in the martial embrace in your Church?(of course there would no other persons present)…no i don’t consider your reply as being disrespectful to me

FBL I’m sure you know I would say no we wouldn’t. It seems you are trying to make the point that Joseph would somehow be violating GOD by having marital relations with Mary his wife. Again I’m sticking strictly to the text. My goal is not to prove anyone as being right or wrong. No one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt either way. My initial proposal was a thorough investigation of the text to see if anything can be gleaned either way. What we find is that there is plenty of support for Mary and Joseph having a normal marriage after Christ was born. Joseph received permission from GOD to proceed with the marriage.

What starts to happen on these threads is folks on both sides will start to throw their own hypotheses out to try and prove their case. I’m staying strictly with the text and taking it back to the original language to see what exactly it is stating.

 

[NDfan]

Yet another one:

Matt 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

“before they came together” strongly implies that they had plans for doing so, which pretty much demolishes the idea that Mary took some vow of chastity.

Chip I made this very point earlier. The Greek used there is synerchomai which literally means - conjugal cohabitation. So it’s quite obvious that the intent of the marriage was to include marital relations. It wasn’t just a pledge from Joseph to be Mary’s husband guarding her virginity.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph right on point. I knew someone that lost their true firstborn son during delivery. She was trying to get her second son first born rights which I believe is possible in the Jewish culture.

It has been a while since I looked at the first born son thing in Jewish laws. It is important to the conversation that we understand some of the rights. I think that the second born can gain the rights in some cases, but I am no expert.

The first born son gains a larger share of the inheretance. He also as a measure of authority within the family, becoming head when the father dies.

The Greek used there doesn’t use a generic group like a crowd. It actually uses the suggenes word which typically refers to family and is also used to refer to cousins. So definitely Mary and Joseph were traveling with their relatives. I’m not so sure it’s significant that the other children are not named. But then again one could argue that it’s interesting we don’t read about them here.

This is actually one of the word use things that I did know. From what I have read, they would have been travelling with their family, almost like an extended family vacation. It would make sense for each parent to think that he was with the other (Mary to think that the 12 year old was with the men, Joseph to think that he was with the women/smaller kids).

It just strikes me as funny that no other kids are mentioned. Yes, we cannot read too much into it, but it seems like a logical place to introduce the gang. Unless there was more than a 12 year age gap…

 

[NDfan]

Does it imply that they were going to have marital relations before the were married…That is the way you are implying this verse means.“Before they came together” simply means before they were married.

FBL this is incorrect. It does not mean before they were married. Matthew already tells us that Mary was espoused to Joseph in verse 18. He immediately follows that by saying before they came together using the word synerchomai. Synerchomai literally means conjugal cohabitation. What Matthew is saying here is they were espoused but before they had sex TO consummate the marriage Mary was found with a child. Consummating the marriage would follow the Kiddushin phase of the engagement. So it’s quite obvious that this was to be a normal marriage.

The message is clear that Mary had relations with someone other than Joseph. Or simply that she cheated on him. That’s the whole reason Joseph contemplates a divorce which is one of 2 options he had for dissolving their engagement. The other was to bring formal charges against Mary which could have resulted in her being stoned.

There’s no doubt that based on the text marital relations would be a part of this marriage. Not a guardianship for Joseph of Mary’s virginity.

 

[NDfan]

So were Mary and Joseph married before she was pregant with Jesus,or after?..

After. They were espoused which is similar to being engaged but contains a legally binding contract. So it’s almost like being married with the exception of marital relations not taking place yet. In the Jewish culture marriage is a 2 step process. The first phase is Kiddushin in which the espoused couple creates a legal contract to be married. Kiddushin usually lasts about a year but can go on longer. During this phase the groom can break the contract provided they have not had sex. At the end of Kiddushin comes chuppah.

Chuppah definitively speaking is the decisive act that formally permits the couple’s new status of marriage to be actualized, and is the legal conclusion of the marriage process that began with betrothal or as we read in Matthew espoused. So a couple was not considered to be formally married until after this point. That’s why Matthew 1:25 is so significant. Matthew took Mary as his wife but given that Mary was pregnant with Christ at the 1 year point of the betrothal, he could not consummate the marriage. Matthew is letting his readers know they consummated the marriage after Christ was born.

 

[NDfan]

St.Matthew 1:24"So Joseph ,arising from sleep,did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,and took unto him his wife."So this is when they came together.

No they couldn’t because Mary was pregnant. That’s the significance of Matthew 1:25. They came together or knew one another after Christ was born.

 

[NDfan]

It has been a while since I looked at the first born son thing in Jewish laws. It is important to the conversation that we understand some of the rights. I think that the second born can gain the rights in some cases, but I am no expert.

The first born son gains a larger share of the inheretance. He also as a measure of authority within the family, becoming head when the father dies.

Ralph I think this is pretty much right on.

This is actually one of the word use things that I did know. From what I have read, they would have been travelling with their family, almost like an extended family vacation. It would make sense for each parent to think that he was with the other (Mary to think that the 12 year old was with the men, Joseph to think that he was with the women/smaller kids).

It just strikes me as funny that no other kids are mentioned. Yes, we cannot read too much into it, but it seems like a logical place to introduce the gang. Unless there was more than a 12 year age gap…

I agree. It’s one of those places that you want to say “hey Matthew if Mary and Joseph had other children why not tell us outright here?” Unless as you say the age gap was large. Providing of course that other children existed

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph I think this is pretty much right on.

And the fact that Jesus would have been Mary’s first born comes into play when we discuss certain verses involving his brethren.

I agree. It’s one of those places that you want to say “hey Matthew if Mary and Joseph had other children why not tell us outright here?” Unless as you say the age gap was large. Providing of course that other children existed

And if there was such a gap, we will need to keep it in mind later…

 

[NDfan]

And the fact that Jesus would have been Mary’s first born comes into play when we discuss certain verses involving his brethren.

Correct like when Christ seems to entrust the care of Mary to John. But if his brethren were not believers wouldn’t it make sense that Christ would not entrust her care to them?

And if there was such a gap, we will need to keep it in mind later…

True.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ralph I think this is pretty much right on.

I agree. It’s one of those places that you want to say “hey Matthew if Mary and Joseph had other children why not tell us outright here?” Unless as you say the age gap was large. Providing of course that other children existed

Gabriel of 12:
This statement contradicts all of Sacred Scripture and against Jewish customs; For one Jesus gave his Mother Mary to his disciple John. IF Mary was not a virgin, or had other children this act that Jesus did on the Cross, would have been an insult to Mary’s entire Tribe.

 

[ralphinal]

Correct like when Christ seems to entrust the care of Mary to John. But if his brethren were not believers wouldn’t it make sense that Christ would not entrust her care to them?

There is also the issue of the younger children telling him what to do or trying to interfere with his work…

True.

Again, is it logical that his brothers and sisters would have ranged from 10-18 at the start of his ministery AND Mary still be able to follow him around? Or that the people of the area would have known them by name and who they were?

 

[NDfan]

There is also the issue of the younger children telling him what to do or trying to interfere with his work…

I’ve seen that discussed before but in speaking with a hard core Rabbi he disagreed and so no relevance.

Again, is it logical that his brothers and sisters would have ranged from 10-18 at the start of his ministery AND Mary still be able to follow him around? Or that the people of the area would have known them by name and who they were?

Well keep in mind that Mary seems to always be following Jesus with the brothers and sisters. Over and over we read Jesus mother and his brothers and sisters. It seems they were always with Mary. If they were cousins then why were they with Mary Jesus mother so much?

 

[ralphinal]

I’ve seen that discussed before but in speaking with a hard core Rabbi he disagreed and so no relevance.

Really? Was he speaking from a modern Jewish point of view or was he taking into account the Middle Eastern Mindset that says the younger may never question the elder male? You see it today in many cultures in Asia and the Middle east. In fact, it is not uncommon among Italians.

Well keep in mind that Mary seems to always be following Jesus with the brothers and sisters. Over and over we read Jesus mother and his brothers and sisters. It seems they were always with Mary. If they were cousins then why were they with Mary Jesus mother so much?

Except for the one time she needed them the most. I just find it hard to accept that they would not be there for their brother or mother.

 

[NDfan]

Really? Was he speaking from a modern Jewish point of view or was he taking into account the Middle Eastern Mindset that says the younger may never question the elder male? You see it today in many cultures in Asia and the Middle east. In fact, it is not uncommon among Italians.

Ralph he did comment on the mindset of that time. But he said it was obvious Jesus’ brothers were not believers and were enticing HIM to go to the feast of booths to show HIS miracles. If they were participating in HIS ministry as active believers then the Rabbi felt the language would be different. He felt they disrespected HIM because as non-believers they would consider HIS declarations as the son of GOD similar to that of the Jews who crucified Jesus. As blasphemous. This alone would command no respect and almost make Christ an outcast to HIS family.

This makes sense when reading in Mark that they went to get HIM because they thought HE was out of HIS mind. Makes you wonder if Mary completely understood.

Except for the one time she needed them the most. I just find it hard to accept that they would not be there for their brother or mother.

I agree. Although scripture does not say they weren’t there. It only mentions some who were there. Although if brothers and sisters were there I would have to believe scripture would record it. If Jesus did have brothers and sisters then yes absolutely this is terrible behavior. But going back to what the Rabbi told me. He mentioned that Christ was considered a criminal. Given they didn’t believe he said it wouldn’t be uncommon for a family member to not attend the crucifixion.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph he did comment on the mindset of that time. But he said it was obvious Jesus’ brothers were not believers and were enticing HIM to go to the feast of booths to show HIS miracles. If they were participating in HIS ministry as active believers then the Rabbi felt the language would be different. He felt they disrespected HIM because as non-believers they would consider HIS declarations as the son of GOD similar to that of the Jews who crucified Jesus. As blasphemous. This alone would command no respect and almost make Christ an outcast to HIS family.

This makes sense when reading in Mark that they went to get HIM because they thought HE was out of HIS mind. Makes you wonder if Mary completely understood.

I agree. Although scripture does not say they weren’t there. It only mentions some who were there. Although if brothers and sisters were there I would have to believe scripture would record it. If Jesus did have brothers and sisters then yes absolutely this is terrible behavior. But going back to what the Rabbi told me. He mentioned that Christ was considered a criminal. Given they didn’t believe he said it wouldn’t be uncommon for a family member to not attend the crucifixion.

Something just poped into my head. See if this makes sense.

Would Jesus’s brothers and sisters have known about the virgin birth? I would say that, yes, at some point they would. If they knew how he was conceived and that he was NOT the son of Joseph, why would they not believe?

There is something problematic to me about saying that they were not believers. I can’t put my finger on it, but it just doesn’t seem to make sense to me.