Brothers of Christ for Mickey

[NDfan]

So did Mary and Joseph have sex?

It was natural for Mary and Joseph to have sex

Canto I had to split your post into 2. I want to address the second part in another response.

Good observations but keep in mind Matthew does tell us that they did not have marital relations until after Christ was born. The Priests had to refrain from intimacy during their time of service, but not after. So if scripture said that the priests shall refrain from intimacy **until ** after their time of service would you say they never had intimacy? Of course not. A time frame is implied here.

God’s ways are not like our ways (Is 55:8–9). When the Second Person of the Trinity is in your wife’s womb, you can expect to have a different marriage than most folks!

According to you Canto. But if we read scripture we find the Angel told Joseph to continue with the marriage. The Angel gave Joseph no stipulations at all. Based on what Matthew is writing from a strict Jewish perspective, there’s no reason to believe that their marriage wasn’t a normal marriage after Christ was born.

Interestingly, according to Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her. The man had to put her away privately or condemn her in public and put her to death. Joseph chose the more merciful option.

Not true at all. The man would have to have permission from the one who initially had relations with her. So if you were Jewish and betrothed to a woman following a typical Jewish practice you would wait for about a year until you actually took her home to consummate the marriage. In the Jewish culture this was considered Kiddushin. If the wife had sexual relations during Kiddushin then the only option was to put her away or seek permission from the opposing party for lack of a better way to say it

In this case we see Joseph doing exactly what a Jewish man would do in this situation. Although Joseph was kind to Mary because he could have brought charges against her resulting in stoning. But before he moves forward with the divorce the Angel tells him to move forward with the wedding because the Child is from the Holy Spirit. This confirms 2 things for us. That Mary is still a virgin, and now Joseph has permission from GOD to marry her.

Then, the angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” To “overshadow” a woman was a euphemism for having a marital relationship, as was the phrase “to lay one’s power” over a woman. The Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart for God.

Canto this is absolutely untrue. The language used in Luke does not imply sexual relations and in no way implies that Mary was espoused to the Holy Spirit. It’s quite the opposite. The word use in Matthew 25 is ginosko which is a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It doesn’t get any more clear than that. The word used in Luke is episkiazo which means to throw a shadow upon, to envelop in a shadow, to overshadow. This is how Mary conceived threw the power of the Holy Spirit. Matthew flat out tells us that Mary and Joseph were betrothed using the word mnesteuo which means to be promised in marriage, be betrothed. We see nothing of this type of language in Luke. Point of fact the RCC does not condone the description of Mary as having sex with the Holy Spirit.

• Jason Everet (from an article he wrote)

Matthew 1:26 knew her not

The Greek until (not the English) means up to a point in time and not after. So up til the birth of Christ Mary and Jospeh did not have sex with no implication they did afterward.

Matthew 28:20 says that Christ will be with us until the end of time. When the end of time comes will Christ no longer be with us?

Canto this is such an old argument that holds no water. Please read the posts ralphinal and I exchanged on this issue. The greek term heos hou used in Matthew 1:25 can certainly imply a reversal of the previous condition and is seen in the NT plenty of times.

A great example is in matthew 18:30 which I presented to FBL and I quote:

And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till (heos hou) he should pay the debt.

The word heos hou used there is the same term used in Matthew 1:25. At one time protestants tried to argue that heos hou always meant reversal but it simply does not. It depends on the context of the verse. In this example we see that the man is jailed until he pays his debt. Using Everet’s logic the man would never get out of jail even after he paid his debt. That’s just not true.

The other problem with Everet which just goes to show his lack of expertise is in matthew 28:20, the word heos is used alone and not in conjunction with heos hou. Heos alone implies a certain condition is in effect per se up until a certain time, but gives no confirmation of the condition after. That doesn’t mean the condition discontinued though. It just means it may or may not. But that’s why Matthew uses heos hou and gives us the conditions for when Mary and Joseph had marital relations. This is further confirmed for us in Matthew 1:18 because we are told they had not yet come together using the word synerchomai which literally means conjugal cohabitation. So Matthew is telling us that Mary and Joseph had every intention of engaging in marital relations but they waited until Christ was born.

 

[NDfan]

So just because the Church does not accept something as inspired means that it cannot be accepted as a historical document.:banghead:

It goes much further than that. The work itself is not considered to be authentic either way. No one can validate which James wrote it and the time frame is dated to the second century. The real nail in the coffin is the obvious contradictions to Matthew. So accepting it as historical is fine. But accepting it as historically accurate is much different.

The only thing that is in contradiction here is the witness of history and your own fallible interpretation of Scripture.

Blessings,
Marduk

My interpretation is hardly fallible but I certainly don’t declare it to be infallible. I know my greek so I know what scripture is saying. If history contradicts what someone said in the Gospel then I defer to the Gospel plain and simple.

 

[NDfan]

That’s the problem with Protestantism. You don’t have any appreciation for the history of the early Church. Papias, writing around the turn of the first century, who was a colleague of Polycarp (yes, the very one who knew St. John himself) explained that the “brothers” of the Lord were really his cousins, the sons of Mary’s relatives.

As John Henry Newman stated, to know history is to cease being Protestant.

Blessings,
Marduk

No disrespect to you Mardukm but I could care less what Newman states.

Papias writings have virtually disappeared so we can never know what he personally wrote. Please show me where Polycarp wrote this communication from Papias.

 

[mardukm]

FBL you are trying to speak for Joseph comparing what you know now. We need to keep it relevant to the events of that time. If we stay strict to the Greek and understand the Jewish betrothal which is what Ralph and I are discussing, we find that the use of the word heos hou in matthew 1:25 can be suggestive of a reversal especially when coupled with what we are told in Matthew 1:18. At one time protestants tried to argue that heos hou always meant a reversal of the prior condition. We find that simply is not true. But there plenty of instances where it does suggest a reversal and can be gleaned when considering other passages or from the text itself.

A good example is Matthew 18:30.

And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till (heos hou) he should pay the debt.

Obviously we see here that as soon as the debt is paid the man will be freed from jail.

Your personal feelings about Joseph not having marital relations with Mary are irrelevant. Not intending that in a disrespectful way.

I don’t think this is a matter of “personal feelings about Joseph not having marital relations.” It is a matter of what Scripture records.

Scripture states SPECIFICALLY that Joseph was willing to put Mary away when he found out she was pregnant. In other words, he was neither willing nor intending to have relations with her when he thought another man had done so. But then the angel of the Lord told him that it was GOD HIMSELF who overshadowed Mary.

Do you believe that Joseph was a God-fearing man? If Joseph was willing NOT to have relations with her when he thought a MERE MAN had previously had relations with her, how do you think it possible that he would have relations with her after he found out that it was GOD HIMSELF who overshadowed Mary? It is more logical to assume that Joseph knew that his marriage to Mary was intended for him to take care and provide for Mary and the baby Jesus, NOT for him to have relations with her.

Also, answer this question: How could Joseph NOT know after what the angel told him that Mary was indeed SET APART FOR GOD.

I think your interpretations are blasphemous in the context of the Jewish understanding. I do not intend for that to sound mean-spirited. It is just the fact given the circumstance of Mary’s case.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No disrespect to you Mardukm but I could care less what Newman states.

I know.

Papias writings have virtually disappeared so we can never know what he personally wrote.

So the fragments contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers are fakes?

Please show me where Polycarp wrote this communication from Papias.

Where did I say Polycarp wrote it? Regardless, Papias must have received the Tradition from somewhere or someone, correct? And the Protoevangelium of James is another early source, certainly much earlier than the “400 years” date that has been thrown around. Don’t forget St.Irenaeus and St. Athanasius. Or do you think everything that the early Fathers wrote they just made up out of thin air?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NDfan]

I don’t think St. Ireneaues was “400 years after.” Certainly, Papias was not “400 years after.” St. Athanasius was only 300 years after.

Fortunately for us, the one I read was not one of the “non-existent one.” It was contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.

Blessings,
Marduk

The only thing you could have read was a fragment which contains nothing about the state of Mary as ever-virgin. Point in fact the fragment which describes the relationship of the sons to the different Marys is fragment 31. This is considered to be from the middle ages and is quite laughable.

Please tell me why Papias or whoever really wrote the fragment does not tell us who the sisters of Christ belong to?

PEACE

 

[mardukm]

The only thing you could have read was a fragment which contains nothing about the state of Mary as ever-virgin. Point in fact the fragment which describes the relationship of the sons to the different Marys is fragment 31. This is considered to be from the middle ages and is quite laughable.

I think some have reasoned that the fragment was from the Middle Ages because of a GLOSS in the document. No one has proven the contents themselves are not from Papias.

Please tell me why Papias or whoever really wrote the fragment does not tell us who the sisters of Christ belong to?

Seems obvious Papias was interested in explaining the identities of the Mary’s. It has the added benefit of demonstraing that the brothers you and other Protestants claim were the Blessed Mother’s were actually the children of the Blessed Mother’s relatives. As Jesus’ “brothers” were his cousins, it is more logical to assume that his “sisters” were also cousins.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Would you care to answer my question about Joseph?

 

[ralphinal]

Luke 2:7 she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

The existence of a firstborn, at the very least, implies the existence of some born after.

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.

Also of interest is the Temple scene during Jesus’ youth. You would hardly expect a mother to misplace a single child and not notice he was gone, unless she was busy looking after others.

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?

 

[NDfan]

I don’t think this is a matter of “personal feelings about Joseph not having marital relations.” It is a matter of what Scripture records.

Scripture states SPECIFICALLY that Joseph was willing to put Mary away when he found out she was pregnant. In other words, he was neither willing nor intending to have relations with her when he thought another man had done so. But then the angel of the Lord told him that it was GOD HIMSELF who overshadowed Mary.

Yes and then subsequently gave permission to Joseph to continue with the wedding. You need to take some time and really study what the Greek is telling us in Matthew.

Do you believe that Joseph was a God-fearing man? If Joseph was willing NOT to have relations with her when he thought a MERE MAN had previously had relations with her, how do you think it possible that he would have relations with her after he found out that it was GOD HIMSELF who overshadowed Mary? It is more logical to assume that Joseph knew that his marriage to Mary was intended for him to take care and provide for Mary and the baby Jesus, NOT for him to have relations with her.

Yes I believe Joseph was GOD-fearing. Joseph also was a respectable man which is why he did not bring charges against Mary that could have resulted in her being stoned. He decided to put her away quietly which incidentally completely contradicts what the infancy Gospel of James tells us. A point back to your previous post.

GOD gave permission to Joseph to continue with the marriage. The Angel tells Joseph nothing of any stipulations surrounding it. In the strict Jewish culture Joseph had no reason to not continue with a sexual union with Mary. She was still a virgin and had GOD’s permission. Again you are intimating your own feelings and not staying with what is written.

Also, answer this question: How could Joseph NOT know after what the angel told him that Mary was indeed SET APART FOR GOD.

Because the Angel gives Joseph permission to continue with the wedding. This alone let’s Joseph know that GOD has blessed their marriage. Answer this: Why would GOD deprive Joseph of his conjugal rights as the husband? That makes no sense at all .

I think your interpretations are blasphemous in the context of the Jewish understanding. I do not intend for that to sound mean-spirited. It is just the fact given the circumstance of Mary’s case.

Blasphemous?? Hardly. To the contrary I am interpreting Matthew with a full understanding of Jewish culture and tradition. What amazes me is the lack of understanding or just plain ignorance others have. Not intending that towards you but this response has no merit. You are expressing an opinion instead of focusing on the text. That was the intent of the thread.

I never stated to Ralphinal or Mickey that we were trying to prove one another wrong. Just have a healthy charitable discussion to try and understand both points of view. This is just another example of how these threads get so easily derailed.

PEACE

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Has anyone considered the notion that Mary took the Nazerene Vow, to hold to her perpetual virginity vow to God, even though it was the custom for a Jewish maiden to take a husband for support according to the law of Moses?

Gabriel cursed Zechariah (father of John the baptist) for questioning God’s word. Mary questions Gabriel’s annunciation, because her vow of virginity would by affected if she were to concieve a child, but Gabriel confirmed it would not be by Joseph but by an act of God she will concieve a male child. Although the gospel reveals she will be married, yet she questioned the conception, had she not made a perpetual vow of virginity to God, she would have rejoiced at the angels Word that she would concieve a child, But she became troubled by such an announcement.

**Luke 1:18 **
Then Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.”
19
And the angel said to him in reply, “I am Gabriel, 8 who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news.
20
But now you will be speechless and unable to talk 9 until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time.”

The Nazerite Vow
Numbers 30: 4-17 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid.14 "Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void. 17 These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father’s house.

**Luke 1:34 **
But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” 12
35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Thus Mary rejoiced, because she would be able to keep her vow of virginity unto the Lord, and still give birth to the messiah.

Here is the prophet who confirms this;
** Isaiah 66: 7 **Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,

Luke 1: 46 And Mary said: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. (all ages include past, present and future eternally)

 

[fbl9]

FBL

Your personal feelings about Joseph not having marital relations with Mary are irrelevant. Not intending that in a disrespectful way.

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

 

[ckempston]

In semitic culture, “Firstborn” ONLY refers to the one who opened the womb. THAT’S IT. It does not imply anything of a second-born, third-born, etc, etc,

Yes it does. Luke wasn’t writing to Semitics, he was writing to Greeks - whether “Theophilus” was a person or a group of people, it was addressed to Greeks.

She didn’t misplace him. He walked away. She could have been busy shopping (seriously, this scenario actually happened to me when I was a small child). What makes you think she was busy taking care of other kids?

Blessings,
Marduk

Did you get left at the store for an entire day? Gimme a break. You can imagine this happening if Mary has multiple kids to keep track of. Otherwise, she just looks irresponsible.

 

[ckempston]

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.

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?

They are mentioned: every time the Bible refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. There are words in Greek for cousins, countrymen, and near relations, and nobody ever takes the option to clarify things for us and use these specific words.

 

[NDfan]

I know.

So the fragments contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers are fakes?

I believe I answered this but again the only thing available that is attributed to Papias are fragments. Fragment 31 which had information regarding the sons of the Marys in the NT is questionable at best.

Where did I say Polycarp wrote it? Regardless, Papias must have received the Tradition from somewhere or someone, correct?

I didn’t say you said Polycarp wrote it. I asked for you to show me the writing if it existed. Of course I already knew it didn’t. As far as Papias receiving it from Polycarp, please show me documentation that records this. The fragments are not enough as again they are questionable and the original works are gone. Word of mouth is unacceptable as final proof. So when did Polycarp tell Papias this and who did Papias tell and so and so on? Someone had to write it down sometime.

And the Protoevangelium of James is another early source, certainly much earlier than the “400 years” date that has been thrown around.

I never threw out 400 years. But the Infancy Gospel of James most certainly was not written prior to the early to mid 2nd century. And we do not have an authentic author established for this work. The early church never accepted it as valid neither inspired nor historical. It completely contradicts Matthew in several places. But if you insist on citing it as a source then we have to address the holes that the work has in it. The obvious thing it does not address is who Jesus’ sisters were. The work only mentions 2 brothers that Joseph had from a previous marriage.

Don’t forget St.Irenaeus and St. Athanasius. Or do you think everything that the early Fathers wrote they just made up out of thin air?

Blessings,
Marduk

Well please show me what Irenaeus wrote regarding Mary. Athanasius didn’t come until the 4th century so I’m guarded about what he has to say. As far as other ECFs no I don’t believe they make stuff up from thin air. But what we read from many of them is their own interpretation of scripture.

 

[ckempston]

Even more damaging is the fact that Luke, who refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, uses the word “cousin” to describe Mary’s relationship with Elizabeth. That Luke was familiar with a word for near-relative, made use of it, but still referred to Jesus’ so-called “cousins” as “brothers” makes the argument for them being other children of Mary and Joseph all the more likely.

Suggenes - near kin (Luke 1 to describe Mary/Elizabeth relationship)
Anepsios - cousin (Col 4:10 by Paul)
Adelphos - brother (James, the brother of the Lord)
Adelphe - sister (your brothers and sisters are looking for you)

 

[NDfan]

I think some have reasoned that the fragment was from the Middle Ages because of a GLOSS in the document. No one has proven the contents themselves are not from Papias.

Actually the wording used in the fragment suggests medieval times. The only reason it’s attributed to Papias is because the word Papia is written in the margin. It was believed to be originally part of a dictionary.

Seems obvious Papias was interested in explaining the identities of the Mary’s. It has the added benefit of demonstraing that the brothers you and other Protestants claim were the Blessed Mother’s were actually the children of the Blessed Mother’s relatives. As Jesus’ “brothers” were his cousins, it is more logical to assume that his “sisters” were also cousins.

Well we haven’t established this work was from Papias. And what he writes is no different than what the RCC has done to try and explain the relationship. The problem with saying cousin is that the Greek uses Adelphos/Adelphoi. No we both know that means literal blood brother and sister, but also can be used to refer to countrymen, or fellow believers in Christ. But here’s the interesting thing you have to answer. Why doesn’t the Greek use the word for cousin which is suggenes? It’s used other places to refer to cousins in the NT. Also why do the Gospel writers always say Jesus’ mother and his brothers and sisters in that format. The brothers and sisters are always listed as being with Mary Jesus mother. If they weren’t his half brothers from Joseph and Mary then they sure traveled with Mary Jesus’ mother alot.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever heard of the word desposyni? This was a term used to refer to Jesus blood relatives as late as the 4th century. Ever read Eusebius commentary on Hegesippus who existed in the early 2nd century? To quote one item from this:

“…There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.”

P.S. Would you care to answer my question about Joseph?

Yes did I miss one? What was it? Be back shortly.

 

[ckempston]

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.

 

[fbl9]

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.

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.

 

[ckempston]

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.

If that were the case, why would anybody be surprised that she was pregnant before they “came together” (which is simply a euphamism for consummating the marriage)?

We cannot view Jewish betrothal as modern Westerners. It was very different in this time.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

Legally binding betrothal and cohabitation were two separate things, which is why Mary would have been surprised at the angels announcement that she would conceive. This would especially be true, if as the Jewish Encyclopedia states, the betrothal period could last quite a long time.

 

[fbl9]

If that were the case, why would anybody be surprised that she was pregnant before they “came together” (which is simply a euphamism for consummating the marriage)?

We cannot view Jewish betrothal as modern Westerners. It was very different in this time.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

Legally binding betrothal and cohabitation were two separate things, which is why Mary would have been surprised at the angels announcement that she would conceive. This would especially be true, if as the Jewish Encyclopedia states, the betrothal period could last quite a long time.

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