Did Joseph ever intend to divorce Mary his wife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nguyencongbinh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nguyencongbinh

Guest
Did Joseph ever intend to divorce Mary his wife? NO

Because of space limit- My text will be covered in 3 separate post- Please also read And2 Mary Ever Remained Pure. I am fully responsible for what I state. Nguyen Cong Binh

You are requested to join a fact finding jury before you may want to be persuaded by John Paul. Was Mary engaged before she was visited by the angel? Did Joseph discover the child Jesus as a fatherless child? Did Joseph ever intend to divorce his fiancée? YES had been my assumption for many years. After being convinced by John Paul, I now say NO. Please read St. Matthew’s declaration:

KATA MATHAION The Gospel According to Matthew
**tou de iesou Christou hê genesis houtôs ên
mnêsteutheisês tês mêtros autou Marias tô Iôsêph prin
ê sunelthein autous
heurethê en gastri echousa ek pneumatos hagiou. **

Literal meaning by word order – line by line
Of in deed Jesus Christ the birth/coming/origin in this way was
Having been engaged the mother of him to the Joseph –prin- BEFORE THAT TIME
-e- AND ALSO BEFORE lived together they
(it, THE COMING or BIRTH) was fully made known she having( THE CHILD) from Holy Spirit

The Gospel According to Matthew by John Paul II NOVA VULGATA - (www.vatican.va)
**18 CHRISTI autem generatio sic erat :
cum esset desponsata mater eius MARIA IOSEPH,
antequam convenirent
inventa est in utero habens de SPRITU SANCTO, **

Literal meaning by word order
Of Christ in deed the birth/coming/origin in this way was:
AT THE TIME was engaged the mother of him Mary to Joseph
AND ALSO BEFORE they lived together
(IT, THE COMING or BIRTH) was fully made known in womb she having( THE CHILD) from Holy Spirit

(A paraphrased rough draft) THE HOLY FAMILY

**18. The Lord Jesus Christ’s birth in deed occurred as follows:
His coming - in that Mary (in time#1) in her womb having a Child from YHWH The Giver Of Life, The Holy Spirit,
was fully made known (heurethe/ inventa) to Joseph ( in time#2)
before (prin/cum) Mary, His Mother, get engaged (aras) to Joseph, (in time#3)
as well as before (e/antequam) the day ( time#5) they lived together (onah), **

Being requested, St. Joseph immediately obeyed and get Mary betrothed (time3) but his holiness caused him to disqualify himself and developed a big fear in claiming Mary as his wife (time4) and Jesus as His Adopted Son until The Word Of The Lord raised him up. He then in time 5 obeyed and celebrated the chuppah to finalize the marriage

**TIME YHWH SALVATION PLAN REVEALED TO JOSEPH:
**
Matthew and John Paul showed me I had been completely wrong when I used to assume Joseph after being engaged to Mary discovered the Child by himself and was angry that the Child was not his but fatherless. And he thought of dragging her out to be stoned to death but finally the compassionate husband decided to divorce her. My assumption was a tortious defamation to the Holy Couple. Matthew used the inseparable idiom prin e and Jerome and John Paul used the Latin cum-antequam that clearly described the timing of Jesus’ birth in 5 time phases. (Footnote 1- Comment on the idiom PRIN E- See Act7:2 and Mc 14:30)

**Time1: MARY WAS CHOSEN TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE LORD JESUS:
**
The Savior was promised to the human race in the beginning of time and came close when The Holy Spirit gave a human life to YHWH The Son Of God to be conceived by Mary.

Time2: JOSEPH WAS VISITED BY GOD’S MESSENGER:

Christ’s Coming was clearly revealed to Joseph, the qualified man chosen by YHWH The Holy Spirit and his consent was given. To me, Jesus accepted to be conceived when Mary said YES to become His Mother and to be Joseph’s wife and Joseph’s consent was given. Habens as present participle and inventa est as the main clause grammatically explained both time1 and time2 occurred almost in a same time span, not in the same day but very close.

**Time 3: MARY AND HOSEPH HAD OBEYED AND they GET MARRIED: **

Joseph quickly get her aras /mnesteutheises/ desponsata/ engaged by celebrating the Kiddushin the true wedding first ceremonial at Mary’s home. Joseph the groom and his parents-presented the cultural negotiated bride-price to Mary’s father and a gift to Mary and signed a ketubah (a written marriage contract) promising a good care for the bride’s needs. Mr. Joachim the father of the bride agreed to. Matthew did not mention the traditional bride-price Joseph must have paid to get Mary aras/engaged as Mr. Joachim could have demanded to grant him Mary as his wife and the required gift to Mary in order for her to accept being his wife.
 
Did Joseph ever intend to divorce Mary his wife? NO
(Part1:) TIME YHWH SALVATION PLAN REVEALED TO JOSEPH:
Time1: MARY WAS CHOSEN TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE LORD JESUS:
Time2: JOSEPH WAS VISITED BY GOD’S MESSENGER:
Time 3: MARY AND HOSEPH HAD OBEYED AND they GET MARRIED:

May I bring up the important Jewish traditional ketubahmarriage contract Joseph offered at the engagement ceremony. Joseph promised more than what was customarily written to The Lady and to The Great Son She was bearing that he will take care of them in Love and Full Honor. After Joseph recited and signed the ketubah, Mrs. Anna Joachim, the mother in law following the tradition joyfully smashed a plate. Once promised it’s promised.

Joseph then offered Mary a cup of wine blessed with the prayer: "Blessed are You, Eternal our God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, You have given us the fruit of the vine, Amen." Mary drank from the cup joyfully showing her acceptance. The covenant was sealed. Joseph and Mary were as of that time seen by all not only being engaged but as husband and wife. Joseph became Mary’s **BAAL-**husband as of the date the Kiddushin engagement ceremony took place. Children conceived after their parents became aras, as Jesus in this case, were legitimate offspring [Ex 22:15; Deut 20:7,22:23, 22:28; 28:30; 2Sam 3:14; Hos 2:21, 22),

For many weeks, Mary was waiting for the subsequent celebration called the **Nisu’in or Chuppah ceremony. Joseph the **baal **/husband to laqach (to claim her as his wife and to carry) her and Her Son into his home to onah (living together Ex 21:10 also see the wedding of Cana and the parable of the 10 virgins.) As a Vietnamese, I clearly understand the one marriage but the 2 distinct ceremonies my great great ancestors observed for many thousand years - Our first marriage was called CUOI and it was the same as the Kiddhusin. The 2nd celebration was called XIN (request) or RUOC DAU – similar to laqach - a big celebration of the whole village when the groom carried out the newlywed wife to his home.

**Time 4: FULL OF THOUGHTS, BELIEVING HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED, AND IN A GREAT FEAR, JOSEPH WISHED TO WITHDRAW **
This tragic incident occurred as follows:

‘Eureka. I found it. Wholly satisfied I am’ – shouted out the great Archimedes (287 - 214 BC) from his bath tub.
About 200 years later, a great man, the humble Joseph, in agony, talked to himself
***:‘hEurethe: Fully made aware of God’s Plan I was. Unworthy but I am. I was being terrified but The Word Of YHWH God The Holy Spirit raised me up.’ ***

This was what happened as explained by St Matthew

I**ôsêph de ho anêr autês,
dikaios ôn
kai mê thelôn autên deigmatisai,
eboulêthê lathra apolusai autên-
tauta de autou enthumêthentos **
Joseph in deed the husband of her
holy (man) being
and he not choosing her grossly-and-wrongfully defamed/disgraced
he wished in his deep heart/secretly run away/dismiss her
Those things in deed he well-having-thought of-

Nova Vulgata**19 Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus
et nollet eam traducere,
voluit occulte dimit¬tere eam. 20 Haec autem eo cogitante **
Joseph in deed the husband
As he was holy
And he did not want her tortiously disgraced/vilified
He wished in his own heart dismiss her
Those things to him he was thinking of.

(A paraphrased rough draft)
***19. A holy man Joseph her husband was.
To grossly and wrongfully humiliate (deigmatisai, traducere ) her and the HOLY CHILD,
he did not want.
And in his deep heart he desired to withdraw (apolusai dimittere) from her
and the HOLY CHILD.
20. Deeply thinking over these issues he was (to continue or not to continue acting as Jesus’ legal and stepfather and Mary‘s husband)…. Look- the angel of YHWH The Lord… ***

Joseph was a holy man (dikaios/justus) chosen by Salvation Plan Most High Programmer. *Was Joseph’s holiness within the standard given by Jesus in Mt 24 or that of the Mosaic laws? *God is Love. Only people practicing God’s Will in fulfilling the New Commandment of Love are justified, made holy by God through Jesus shall enter God’s Kingdom. A Vietnamese proverb taught me ăn quả nhớ kẻ trồng cây eating the fruit give thanks to the planter. In deeply appreciating Mary giving birth to Jesus but for me it is very unfair to narrow Joseph’s role only as a food provider to Jesus. His holiness, his full care and daily work and his share in educating the child, together with Mary brought The Incarnated Word to the human race I am included. It was his perfect gift in fulfilling the Commandment of Love to Jesus, Mary as a husband and father and to all of us. Thanks, dear Joseph! Salvation came from your Holy Family, a Jewish family (Jn2:22)

JOSEPH’S FEARS: Joseph obeyed God’s Will in immediately celebrating the engagement-*aras *ceremony, full of thoughts, Joseph became then hesitant because of his deep respect toward Mary and God’s Son. His reasoning tormented his brain.
Please see part3)
 
Did Joseph ever intend to divorce Mary his wife? NO
Part1and2: TIME YHWH SALVATION PLAN REVEALED TO JOSEPH:
Time1: MARY WAS CHOSEN TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE LORD JESUS:
Time2: JOSEPH WAS VISITED BY GOD’S MESSENGER:
This part
Time 3: MARY AND JOSEPH HAD OBEYED AND they GET MARRIED:
THEN JOSEPH DEVELOPED GREAT FEARS: Joseph obeyed God’s Will in immediately celebrating the engagement-aras ceremony, full of thoughts, Joseph became then hesitant because of his deep respect toward Mary and God’s Son. His reasoning tormented his brain.

An unworthy human he was, he could never accept the baby Jesus His Lord would call him “ABBA/ Daddy, My Father”. A worthless man he was, how could the Mother of God call him BAAL, my lord and my owner which culturally meant a ‘husband’ at his times (See 1Pet 3:6)?
Code: 
 He did not want to baal Mary (own Mary and become her master, her lord) because by doing so, he wrongfully and grossly vilify (humiliate, traduce, as to parade a criminal in front of the public before killing him) her and the Child (please compare Mt 1:19 *deigmatizo* and *traducere *with Heb 6:4 Col. 2:15).   Joseph was feeling guilty. In the bottom of his heart (*occulte-* unknown to no one but God), Joseph wished –*voluit- *he could have withdrawn (apoluo, dimittere) but as the iconized prophet Jonah, the holy man Joseph could not escape from himself and His God. YHWH The Healer and Comforter however was waiting for him at the lowest point of the void of his deep darkness. 

 Some thirty years after, the same type of agony fell on Jesus in the Gethsemane garden, rupturing his capillaries and sweating his blood out when he was trembling before being traducere- publicly defamed and paraded as a criminal with the cross before being nailed. An angel was sent to him. God granted us freedom to think and to act but demanded full obedience in our deeds with our own freedom and God is always at our side.
Next part: TIME 5: AFTER THE ANGEL VISTED HIM FOR THE SECOND TIME, THE WORD OF THE LORD ENLIGHTENED HIM, JOSEPH IMMEDIATELY OBEYED IN CELEBRATING THE CHUPPAH AND CARRIED MARY AND HER SON INTO THE FAMILY HOME
 
May I ask what the purpose of your post is? Are you telling us something you think we don’t know or asking us a question or what?
 
Thanks for all replies.
My purpose is to honor John Paul and to admire him. And I will be following John Paul in reading the Scriptures. I strongly believe in each statement of the Bible because The Bible contained the truth- The Incarnated Word.
Most of you have as Catholic have clearly mastered the issue. This is a reinforced restatement of the facts and I need your support. Please don’t be offended. We all need John Paul and Nova Vulgata. I was hesitant for a while before I was convinced that John Paul was grammatically correct. Help me with more proof to help the others to acknowledge The Truth.

Some of you may have heard this issue for the first time and I hope you will be convinced by John Paul and if you need any help then those who knew the issues and I may help you. I was like you for a while.

To those who do not want to be convinced, there will be no debate because I am not an apologetic. Feel free to express your ideas. To me the Truth is The Truth. I am only talking about grammar rules, the common ground for all of us, though from different denominations or faiths, that we all to start with.
Thanks - Nguyen Cong Binh
CAF fairly limited all replies I think about 5000 words. If you want unlimited space, contact me at Nguyencongbinh50@yahioo/com
 
I still don’t understand what you are getting at. Your posts are so jumbled up they are hard to read.

What do we know?

We know Joseph was espoused (engaged if you like) to Mary before she conceived Jesus.
We know Joseph was a good man who did not want to shame Mary after he found out she was pregnant. He did not want to divorce her but thought about putting her away privately so that nobody would know.
We know that while he was trying to make up his mind an angel came to tell him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, which he did.

Everyone knows that because its in Holy Scripture so again I ask what you are trying to point out. What do you know that you think 1.2 billion Catholics do not know.
Please don’t be offended by my question. I just really don’t know what your point is.
 
To my friends

**DID JOSEPH EVER INTENDE TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE MARY?YES? NO? **

NO was my answer and I received a request to clarify the supporting grounds of my answer because it is unusual.
I greatly appreciated your question and the given opportunity to express my findings. It was the same way I had read Mt 1:18 and 19 and had received (known) exactly as you experienced. After being espoused, Joseph found out the pregnancy and determined to divorce Mary…
(1) St. Matthew Kata Matthaion text did not show any punctuation marks, except silent pauses at each conjunction or special locations and I am not qualified to replace them with my own punctuating rule.
(2) Thanks to The Holy Spirit, John Paul brought us his Nova Vulgata, I only checked the punctuation marks in it- and not qualified to talk about other things- and I happily became enlightened.
(3) The Church cautioned us never to read a single verse then interpret it, but to read with other verses of the Bible. I called it **RAST ***Read All Sentences Together. * I found it the necessary rule to first grammatically understand what was written, then to understand MIBA (Meaning Intended By The Author) by discovering the author way to express his ideas, his culture, his language etc…
Please compare 4 facts and timing of Mt 1: 18 with the facts of the following examples:
Example 1: Andres adelphoi kai pateres, akousate.
Ho theos tês doxês ôphthê tô patri hêmôn Abraam onti en tê Mesopotamia prin ê (eta 182) katoikêsai auton en Charran
Nova Vulgata: Qui ait: “ Viri fratres et patres, audite. Deus gloriae apparuit patri nostro Abraham, **cum **esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam moraretur in Charran. My brothers and fathers, please listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham prin/cum before he was in Mesopotamia, eta 182/ antequam and also before he stayed in Haran (Acts 7:2).( prius+quam = ante+quam). It was Stephen’s address to the angry mob ready to stone him to death.

Example 2: The Lord told Peter: tautê tê nukti **prin ê **(eta182) dis alektora phônêsai tris me aparnesê- Peter, in this very night, before (prin – fact #2 the cock crows the first time was implied), and also before (êta182) the cock crows the second time (fact#3) then three times you will deny (fact#1) me thoroughly (Mc 14:30)

**Prin **meant before. ‘E’ (eta 182 meant and also as ( to be distinguished with ‘E’ eta 181(article the- it is pronounced as he (as in Herod) as both etas were found in verse 18). Joined together as a pair, the idiom prin + eta 182 (Latin CUM ANTEQUAM) denoted that fact1 had occurred in time#1 PRIN (before - Latin cum) fact2 of time #2 and E (eta182- as well as before (latin antequam) fact3 of time#3. The Latin cum and antequam each separately introduced its own verb but since the pair prin e was inseparable so prin was grammatically placed not before the fact of time#2 it introduced (stated or implied) but immediately after it. Each language had a set of idioms that were too hard to be fully translated – many English idioms can never be translated into Vietnamese as I experienced.

Can I now repeat here St Matthew and Nova Mt1:18 in parallel- please note that Matthew employed the passive voice showing Joseph did not discover Jesus by himself – * but the Mystery/Coming was fully made known to him before he was espoused/engaged*- The engagement ceremony Kiddhusin was not conincidental and was celebrated after Joseph had obeyed by saying YES to The Lord.

KATA MATHAION The Gospel According to Matthew
**tou de iesou Christou hê genesis houtôs ên
mnêsteutheisês tês mêtros autou Marias tô Iôsêph prin
ê sunelthein autous
heurethê en gastri echousa ek pneumatos hagiou. **
Literal meaning by word order – line by line
Of in deed Jesus Christ the (eta181) birth/coming/origin in this way was
Having been engaged the mother of him to the Joseph –prin- BEFORE THAT TIME
-e- (eta182) AND ALSO BEFORE lived together they
(it, THE COMING or BIRTH) was fully made known she having( THE CHILD) from Holy Spirit

The Gospel According to Matthew by John Paul II NOVA VULGATA - www.vatican.va)
**18 CHRISTI autem generatio sic erat :
cum esset desponsata mater eius MARIA IOSEPH,
antequam convenirent
inventa est in utero habens de SPRITU SANCTO, **
Literal meaning by word order
Of Christ in deed the birth/coming/origin in this way was:
AT THE TIME was engaged the mother of him Mary to Joseph
AND ALSO BEFORE they lived together
(IT, THE COMING or BIRTH) was fully made known in womb she having( THE CHILD) from Holy Spirit
(Please see next)
 
My clarification - continued-

**The holy man Joseph - being aware Mary was The Mother Of The Lord Jesus, being aware Jesus was The Savior has deeply respected and honored them
**

(A paraphrased rough draft) THE HOLY FAMILY
18. The Lord Jesus Christ’s birth in deed occurred as follows:
His coming - in that Mary (in time#1) in her womb having a Child from YHWH The Giver Of Life, The Holy Spirit,
was fully made known (heurethe/ inventa) to Joseph ( in time#2)
before (prin/cum) Mary, His Mother, get engaged (aras) to Joseph, (in time#3)
**as well as before (e/antequam) the day ( time#5) they lived together (onah), **

Nova helped me to read Kata Matthaion and I grammatically read and understood that: Being visited and requested to be Mary’s husband and Jesus’ adopting gather, St. Joseph immediately obeyed and get Mary betrothed/aras or Kiddushin (time3) Culturally the wives called their husbands *baal literally my lord, my master and owner *and children called their fathers *abba. *) . Joseph’s holiness caused him to disqualify himself and developed a big fear in thinking to claim Mary as his wife (time4) and Jesus as His Adopted Son because by doing so, he would wrongfully cause Mary and Jesus to be traducere/vilified.(some read it as dragging her to be stoned) Joseph desired to dimittere/withdraw/run away (though some thought of it as to divorce). While being tormented by those holy thoughts (some read it as in a dream) but against God’s Will, The Word Of The Lord - as brought by the angel- raised him up from his darkness (some used to read as he woke up from the night) . He then in time 5 obeyed and celebrated the chuppah to finalize the marriage and to welcome The Lord. I just followed John Paul and Matthew’s grammar - in reading Mt1:18 and 19 and understand the figurative meaning of some words without stressing on theological meanings I am disqualified to venture into.

We learned from Luke that Elizabeth - and her son John - seeing Mary at the first sight - were enlightened by The Holy Spirit and both rejoiced in completing Part 1 of the *Hail Mary *. We also learned that Mr. Simeon was enlightened and agreed to die (dimittere - not divorce here please) and the old lady of the temple also rejoiced when she saw Mary and Jesus. And we also learned that the 3 Kings (wise men) were enlightened to find out and to come to see the baby and to congratulate Mary and Joseph… and I am strongly convinced that Joseph - more than anyone else- had been clearly enlightened because next to Mary, HE WAS CHOSEN BY YHWH THE HOLY SPIRIT to participate in THE SALVATION PLAN - and because HE IS HOLY (dikaios/justus) as Matthew stated in Mt 1:19. I hope I do not overstate any facts.

Another thing I must add - there was no QUIET DIVORCE PROCEDURE in Moses’ Law - only one normal procedure. Please accept it as a true fact.

Joseph did never think that Mary committed adultery, did never think to drag her to a court to be stoned to death, did never think, as a compassionate man to excuse her by granting her a quiet divorce. My mistaken assumption is now fully withdrawn. Joseph finding himself disqualified fell into a great terror in thinking of his role as Mary’s husband and Jesus’ foster father.

Following John Paul, I humbly submit my findings to remove St. Joseph from many prejudices. In fact to remove from my head all erroneous understandings about the Holy Family I hope you all will also have a new logical look at Mt1:18 and 19. and if possible, please pass the word to your friends.

Tomorrow I will complete part 4 of my writing.
Nguyen Cong Binh
 
My dear friend,
To your Q1 and Q2 in post 6, I have sent you posts 7 and 8. This is a summary

Q1.J*oseph was espoused (engaged) to Mary *before she conceived Jesus.
A1. Reading Matthew and Nova - only with grammar - my humble answer is that The Coming Of The Lord was fully made known to St. Joseph. He then obeyed and celebrated the engagement ceremony. The ceremony was not coincidental. Both Joseph and Mary obeyed to carry God’s Plan. Culturally they were truly married as of the date I called engagement but Mary was waiting for the second ceremony to be carried out to the Holy Home

Q2. “We know Joseph was a good man who did not want to shame Mary after he found out she was pregnant. He did not want to divorce her but thought about putting her away privately so that nobody would know.”
A2. St Matthew clearly stated The Coming/The Birth/The Originof The Lord Jesus Christ was fully made known to St. Joseph. To be fair to Matthew and John Paul, I IRWIS (I Read What I See) the passive voice- Joseph did not discover anything by himself but was visited by the angel and was made known in full
IRWIS: There was no quiet divorce procedure prescribed by Moses’ laws. The ordinary meaning of apoluo/dimittere was to get loose, to run away. Joseph fell into great terror because to act as the foster father of the Lord would be something he could never understand - also to act as the husband of The Mother of the Lord would be an imaginable action for him to carry out
IRWIS: Joseph was (privately) thinking to himself and facing himself as unworthy - His deep thinkings were unknown to no one but God.

Q3: "We know that while he was trying to make up his mind an angel came to tell him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, which he did.
A3. Matthew wrote Joseph was deeply thinking . According to the scholars, Joseph *had decided *to divorce Mary. IRWIS: Objection, speculation- Matthew did never say so.
Q3 will be fully discussed in a subsequent post

Q4 Everyone knows that because its in Holy Scripture so again I ask what you are trying to point out. What do you know that you think 1.2 billion Catholics do not know.

A4. Part 2 of Q4 could be an opinion so I cannot answer. I understand how frustrated you are.
I will never state anything except to clarify that The Holy Scriptures needed be read with caution and it was the reason pope St Pius X, his successors, then Pope Pius XII all wished to review The Vulgata we used for many centuries -

Pope Paul VI decided then pope John Paul finished the task bringing us the Nova Vulgata - The NEW Vulgate replacing The VULGATA. As a Catholic, I respectfully followed John Paul as Our Pastor and he was never wrong in proclaiming The Word Of The Lord. I only started with Matthew- the first book- This is my most important finding from John Paul’s NOVA in making Mt1:25 as an independent sentence: Matthew1:25 **And2 Mary Ever Remained pure **- JP then placed a pause - as an independent sentence (lit. And2 he was never sexually knowing her. The Purity of Mary were cleared out. John Paul was a great pope to me. There should be more values and teaching we shoul discover from Nova.
I followed the scholars some are canonized saints- but to certain issues that provided 2 choices, I rather followed The Pope.

Of course, my reading seemed *unusual * and contradicting the scholars’s *normal *view so it posed many questions to the readers- I appreciated your questions and if you have more, pose them to me… I hope you would agree that reading the Scriptures first as it was written, punctuations included, then to logically understand it, with the help of Mother The Church would be the safe way to understand The Word. I simply did it.

I would like to return to Q1- St Matthew declared as follows:
**tou de iesou Christou hê genesis houtôs ên
mnêsteutheisês tês mêtros autou Marias tô Iôsêph PRIN
E sunelthein autous
heurethê en gastri echousa ek pneumatos hagiou. **
Literal meaning by word order – line by line
Of in deed Jesus Christ the birth/coming/origin in this way was
Having been engaged the mother of him to the Joseph –prin- BEFORE THAT TIME
-e- AND ALSO BEFORE lived together they
(it, THE COMING or BIRTH) was fully made known she having( THE CHILD) from Holy Spirit

The Gospel According to Matthew by John Paul II NOVA VULGATA - (www.vatican.va)
**18 CHRISTI autem generatio sic erat :
*cum *esset desponsata mater eius MARIA IOSEPH,
antequam convenirent
inventa est in utero habens de SPRITU SANCTO, **

Literal meaning by word order
Of Christ in deed the birth/coming/origin in this way was:
AT THE TIME was engaged the mother of him Mary to Joseph
AND ALSO BEFORE they lived together
(IT, THE COMING or BIRTH) was fully made known (passive voice) in womb she having( THE CHILD) from Holy Spirit

Because of the limit of words on each post, Please see next
 
You are not clarifying anything.

It may be because English is not your mother tongue but your posts are not comprehensible and your answers to my questions make no sense!.

This will be my last post. I’m not surprised nobody else has joined in.
 
Continued
(A paraphrased rough draft) THE HOLY FAMILY
by chronological order
**18. The Lord Jesus Christ’s birth in deed occurred as follows:
His coming - in that Mary (in time#1) in her womb having a Child from YHWH The Giver Of Life, The Holy Spirit,
was fully made known (heurethe/ inventa) to Joseph ( in time#2)
before (prin/cum) Mary, His Mother, get engaged (aras) to Joseph, (in time#3)
as well as before (e/antequam) the day ( time#5) they lived together (onah), **
(time#4 was not stated here but the facts Joseph fell in terror- then the angel came- then he celebrated the marriage were subsequently fully described by Matthew)As stated in P7 and P8, the inseparable pair PRIN E was an idiom that means BEFORE AND ALSO BEFORE. Matthew used it here. St Jerome and now John Paul translated it into CUM or quum (for fact1) ANTEQUAM (or priusquam for subsequent fact.) I have cited at least 2 verses in P7 for everyone to grammatically understand the meaning of PRIN E as employed by Matthew and Luke and Jerome and J Paul.
The subject of INVENTA EST was not stated - most scholars thought it was MARY -Their authorities made me accept that Mary was known to Joseph was equivalent to Joseph had discovered Mary’s pregnancy.
The 2nd choice: The verb ginosko invenire meant to know some thing with certainty -not simply to know. The syntax showed it was THE COMING, THE BIRTH as clearly stated by Matthew in the first line. JESUS Our Savior- His NAME - His Coming was the main theme of chapter 1 was intended by Matthew . Please accept it as a grammar issue since the ancient writers usually PEAT Put Emphasis At The End as you may see the Word JESUS and verse 1:25 concluded the chapter.I followed the 2nd choice

The scholars also translated dikaios/justus Joseph was a just man ready to follow Moses law. What are the supporting grounds? None was given except an assumption.Matthew reported Joseph was in great fear (phobeo) not a normal fear. To accuse an unfaithful wife guilty of adultery might upset the husband but it would never cause great fear since he was only following the law. Therefore to me, it did never make sense.

The 2nd choice: The same word dikaios was employed by Matthew in repeating The Lord’s definition what ‘just’ meant because only 'dikaios just people shall enter Eternal Life. (See Mt 24) . I selected the fuller meaning of dikaios given by the Lord - Joseph was a HOLY man, JUSTIFIED - MADE HOLY by GOD. In heavens, next to Mary, the greatest Holy Man/Justified by God/Saint is Joseph. (Hope we will discuss about the issue JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH . To me no one can justify him/herself except being justified by God)

According to the scholars deigmatizo/traducere meant Mary was suspected of adultery and it caused Joseph thinking of dragging her to be stoned. Objection - speculation and assumption of never proven facts.
The 2nd choice: Deigmatizo/ traducere meant to wrongfully and with ill intent and malice to put someone to shame.
The verb traduce in English would better explain the old meaning. Joseph did not want to humiliate Mary and The Son . It was what Joseph was thinking of IF he might be allowed to run away. He did not want to baal Mary (own Mary as wife and become her master, her lord) because by doing so, he wrongfully and grossly vilify (humiliate, sham) her and the Child (please compare Mt 1:19 deigmatizo and traducere with Heb 6:4 Col. 2:15). Paul said that in denying God, we deigmatizo God- in the same way as to crucify Christ the 2nd time. Joseph understood what deigmatizo meant. Joseph was feeling guilty . In the bottom of his heart (occulte- unknown to no one but God), Joseph wished –voluit- he could have withdrawn (apoluo, dimittere). I follow the context set by St. Matthew and the meaning of deigmatizo as explained by St. Paul

The scholars translated apoluo/dimittere as to divorce while the word had many other major meaning as I cited.
My simple and humble conclusion :

**Did Joseph ever intend to divorce Mary? NO
Why? Because the holy Joseph honored Her and The Son and disqualified himself
How? Joseph wished, in his own mind and to himself to have a chance to run away to avoid taking responsibility as the prophet Johna did.

What’s next? The Lord was awaiting him as The Lord waited for Jonah at the bottom of the voidness and Joseph was given courage to carry out What God wanted from Mary and from him, so that the Holy Family be established and that all human beings can be saved. **

Can you help me to remove all misunderstandings attributed to St Joseph. We were misled by the scholars’ use of their terms and their meanings and their understandings shaping a wrong picture of St Joseph and we looked at Joseph and the Holy Family with prejudice. Joseph was portrayed as an average man with the standard of libido as us- sinners. By ridiculing and underestimating St Joseph we under evaluated the work of THE GREATEST PROGRAMMER OF SALVATION, The Holy Spirit, The Giver Of Life.

Please take your time and give your (name removed by moderator)ut to my posts. If you agree, pass this message around. Thanks
 
thistle said:
You are not clarifying anything.

It may be because English is not your mother tongue but your posts are not comprehensible and your answers to my questions make no sense!.

This will be my last post. I’m not surprised nobody else has joined in.
Click to expand...
Iwould join in if I had the slightest idea of what the OP is talking about.
 
The poster simply explains why he is now agreed with Pop John Paul II that St. Joseph did not intend to leave Virgin Mary. He had not been convinced before. …then, he lists all the reason to support his agreement.
 
water said:
The poster simply explains why he is now agreed with Pop John Paul II that St. Joseph did not intend to leave Virgin Mary. He had not been convinced before. …then, he lists all the reason to support his agreement.
Click to expand...
You might be right but I certainly wouldn’t use the word “simply” with reference to anything in the voluminous posts by the OP!
 
I think the OP is also trying to point out that he believes (based on the way St. Matthew’s Gospel is written) that the Annunciation happened before the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were engaged, and probably that the very engagement was a result of the Annunciation? Am I right, OP? :confused:

Karolina
 
Morning_Star15 said:
I think the OP is also trying to point out that he believes (based on the way St. Matthew’s Gospel is written) that the Annunciation happened before the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were engaged, and probably that the very engagement was a result of the Annunciation? Am I right, OP? :confused:

Karolina
Click to expand...
That is not right. Joseph and Mary were espoused before the Annunciation. If Joseph had known about the Annunciation and Mary’s pending conception before they were espoused why would he have been surprised and upset that she was pregnant.
They were espoused before that. Joseph was not too happy then to find out afterwards Mary was pregnant but was a good man so he didn’t want to divorce her and cause her shame. He was thinking about putting her away privately and while he was trying to make up his mind an angel told him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. He decided to do that and then they completed the second half of the bethrothal and became man and wife (i.e. they could now live together).
 
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLIES AND THE POST CARD
We will celebrate Our New Year on FEB 18

Yes! I am confused but I strongly believed that St. Joseph was visited by the angel twice: before the engagement ceremony and then after as narrated by St. Matthew. Yes! I’m not very fluent in English.
Did I correctly read the Latin text and the Greek text?
 
nguyencongbinh said:
THANKS FOR YOUR REPLIES AND THE POST CARD
We will celebrate Our New Year on FEB 18

Yes! I am confused but I strongly believed that St. Joseph was visited by the angel twice: before the engagement ceremony and then after as narrated by St. Matthew. Yes! I’m not very fluent in English.
Did I correctly read the Latin text and the Greek text?
Click to expand...
Sorry I can’t help you with the Latin or Greek.

I use the Douey-Rheims Bible (based on the Latin Vulgate) and there is no mention of a visit to Joseph by an angel prior to the Annunciation.

Chinese New Year is Feb.11 but as your name seems to be Vietnamese I guess Feb 18 is New Year in Vietnam.
Happy New Year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top