B
BartholomewB
Guest
The rule about matrilineal descent is a comparatively recent innovation. In the Herodian period, and even later, patrilineal descent alone was what counted.
- Status
R
ratio1
Guest
If they were married and did not consummate the marriage, isn’t that against Catholic principles?
@Tis_Bearself can you help pls?
Last edited:
D
DIERM
Guest
cmac2,
I know its without malice, but you are reading events told of a 1st century event through the eyes of a 21st century person.
When we read the bible literally, instead of considering the literal sense we find many problematic passages:
“James, the brother of Jesus”, Jesus referring to Mary as “woman” at Cana and at the Cross with his beloved Apostle, come to mind.
“Brother” was a term used for any close male relative including cousin, nephew, etc.
“Woman” was not derogatory, or a term to show inferiority of women, but a term of respect
And “father”, in those ancient times was the head of household. Even today, if a mother referred to the man who adopted, loved, and nurtured her son, we would not correct her, reminding her that that loving man was not the child’s father.
Rejoice!
I know its without malice, but you are reading events told of a 1st century event through the eyes of a 21st century person.
When we read the bible literally, instead of considering the literal sense we find many problematic passages:
“James, the brother of Jesus”, Jesus referring to Mary as “woman” at Cana and at the Cross with his beloved Apostle, come to mind.
“Brother” was a term used for any close male relative including cousin, nephew, etc.
“Woman” was not derogatory, or a term to show inferiority of women, but a term of respect
And “father”, in those ancient times was the head of household. Even today, if a mother referred to the man who adopted, loved, and nurtured her son, we would not correct her, reminding her that that loving man was not the child’s father.
Rejoice!
R
ratio1
Guest
Interesting, are there other instances of this anywhere else?
I’ve always thought (and a priest taught me this) that Jesus called Mary woman was because she was THE woman, ie the new Eve, who will crush the head of the serpent. I could be wrong.
P
poche
Guest
Jesus was the son of Joseph by adoption. In this case the adopted son receives the patrimony of his adopted father.
D
DIERM
Guest
I don’t think your priest was wrong, or what you heard was wrong…what he told you still fits in with my claim that the term was not derogatory, but uplifting. Protestant evangelicals might take “Woman” literally as proof that there was nothing “special” about Mary, and that she was just another woman sinner.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Where are you getting this “story”? I notice you do not list your religion as Catholic.
What do you mean by Mary “had some doubt on the matter”? Mary didn’t go around doubting God.
What do you mean by Mary “had some doubt on the matter”? Mary didn’t go around doubting God.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
They weren’t Catholics. The Catholic Church wasn’t even invented until after Jesus’ ascension when the Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles…33 years away.
Under the Jewish marriage laws of the time, Joseph and Mary were considered married at the betrothal stage. You will note that Joseph considered divorcing Mary quietly, showing that they were already married or he wouldn’t have had to get a divorce.
Regarding consummation, even if they had been Catholics, a Catholic marriage is presumed valid from the moment the two people exchange vows. As I have said before, you do not have to rush home and immediately consummate the marriage in order to make it valid.
Non-consummation would only come up if one of them wished to annul the marriage on that ground, and then the person wishing to annul would have to provide proof of non-consummation. In fact, there have been quite a few saints who agreed to marry each other in the Catholic Church and live as brother and sister (it’s sometimes called a “Josephite marriage” after Mary and Joseph); they had no wish to annul the marriage so they simply continued in a valid marriage without sex and it was perfectly okay.
Last edited:
C
CRV
Guest
I’m sure God dealt with “that aspect” of the matter as He saw in His Wisdom to do.
ETA (hadn’t read replies before responding. Tis is right.)
[As an aside concerning the normal marriage between a man and a women {Not between Joseph & Mary, it sometimes did happen that blood from an animal was used to smear the bedsheets to indicate the marriage had been consumated. And I don’t think this was unheard of because when a teenager I can remember my mother telling me about this happening.]
Last edited:
C
CRV
Guest
Two good articles on this are - Jan. 16, 2013 Was Jesus Dissing His Mother When He Called Her “Woman”? Jimmy Akin and April 27, 2015 The Mystery of the “Woman” at Cana Stephen Beale
B
Bigal
Guest
Interesting rewrite .
S
speculator
Guest
If Joseph wouldn’t take Mary home where was the secret divorce?
E
Elf01
Guest
My guess is that he would not have specified a reason.
L
LilyM
Guest
He wouldn’t publicly accuse her of adultery as she would likely be stoned to death.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Only if there was doubt and the putatively offended husband demanded proof. Otherwise, not so much.
And this is the other problem with your thought experiment: Mary could have asked Joseph (in the presence of the “bloody-sheets-examiners”), “did you and I consummate our marriage?”, and when he would have replied, “why no! No, we didn’t!”, then the lack of production of a bloody sheet would no longer be a problem.
Mary and Joseph weren’t married in the Catholic Church.
(Moreover, they weren’t married in the timeframe – centuries later! – in which this was the standard.)
Unfortunately, your narrative includes lots of extra-Scriptural detail, none of which are anything but your own personal speculation.
I guess that depends on whether the ‘messenger’ is an angel or not.
P
Pattylt
Guest
Question. Several times it’s been stated that Joseph adopted Jesus and it’s stated in a way that makes it seem like a legal process was followed. From my studies, I’ve never found evidence that Judaism had a legal adoption procedure. I certainly may be wrong here! Correct me if I am.
From my understanding at that period in Judaism, a betrothed or married man was just automatically the father…no legal process was required or performed. Romans certainly did this but not Jews . Any help?
From my understanding at that period in Judaism, a betrothed or married man was just automatically the father…no legal process was required or performed. Romans certainly did this but not Jews . Any help?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
@Tis_Bearself put her finger on it in this post, on an earlier thread:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Joseph didn’t formally adopt Jesus, procedure or not, because Joseph would have had to announce to the world Jesus was not his natural son and obviously that would be a problem. Joseph took responsibility for Jesus, wold be a better way of putting it.
D
Delphinus
Guest
Mary was sinless and therefore didn’t commit even venial sin. Since we can establish that in logic, the meaning of this is much different to me.
Calling Jesus the son of Joseph is no more a lie than when my nephew, who was born from another man than my brother before the mother married my brother, is called the son of my brother. If anything, this fact proves so much to me that fatherhood (or motherhood for that matter!) is so much more than who provided the genetic material for the child. It’s the one who raises and nurtures the child, although it could be said that God the Father also did this for Jesus (and all of us!).
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Thanks, ‘Tis. Are you aware if a legal procedure of any kind in Judaism for adoption. While a birth certificate is a legal document (and I have no idea if there is evidence that birth certificates existed then) stating the father still wouldn’t assume a legal adoption existed.
Do you know of any good links that explain what the laws were at that time regarding birth certificates, adoptions, basic birth records, etc.? I’m now curious and will look into it, too! I know the temple contained records that were destroyed in 70ad but I’m not sure what kinds of records they kept. It may have only been temple funds? Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Do you know of any good links that explain what the laws were at that time regarding birth certificates, adoptions, basic birth records, etc.? I’m now curious and will look into it, too! I know the temple contained records that were destroyed in 70ad but I’m not sure what kinds of records they kept. It may have only been temple funds? Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
- Status