This is a lot of nonsense. Everything you claimed in your original post was subsequently shot down using scripture and the necessary linguistic elements that are required to understand what is going on. You are simply in denial.
Exactly!!! I am pretty sure if this were true we would have had some crazy Pope order someone to grab a human Femur bone and turn it upside down.
You jerk.
And I offered prayers for his grandchild (see my post #80). That still doesn’t give him the right to make vitriolic assaults against the Church.
USING CAPSLOCK IS SHOUTING whether you use explanation points or not. Peope come off as rude and arrogent when they use capslocks evcerytime they post.PS - Nobody’s shouting - I like colors. When I shout - I use exclamation points!!
Sure, if Mary wasn’t the spouse of the Holy Spirit. But she was. And St Joseph knew that. He was a righteous man (Mt 1:19).
I just can’t get what?So what if people shout? You just can’t get it that’s why…
So, does the fact that Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus (per Matt. 1:25) mean that they weren’t married prior to the birth of Jesus??
If this is the case, then Jesus was a bastard with no right to Joseph’s name, and so no legal right to be the Messiah, the Son of David, through Joseph. I don’t think you’ve thought your position through very carefully; nor do you appreciate the fact that Jewish marriage was a matter of property ownership. One did not need to consummate a Jewish marriage for it to be a legal marriage (see 1 Cor. 7:36-38). Joseph and Mary had a Jewish (purely legal) marriage, not a Christian Sacramental marriage, in which consummation is necessary to establish a one-Flesh (Sacramental) Covenant. Joseph and Mary were married under the Law. But, under the New Covenant, Mary (and also Joseph himself) were consecrated entirely to God (see Luke 1:38, Matt 19:12).Again, Matt. 1:25 says that this did not happen. So, was Mary Joseph’s legal wife or not? Scripture says she was.
Huh?
Divorce under the Law was always an option. All the husband (or betrothed) would have to do is issue the wife a written bill of divorce, which was similar to granting a slave his freedom. Joseph always had this option, even if he was the child’s father. Having children with a woman did not mean you could not divorce her.No kidding.
Sorry, wrong. You are wrenching the narrative out of context. Joseph was going to quietly divorce Mary prior to the Divine dream telling him to accept her as his wife. Matt. 1:25 addresses the situation after Joseph accepted Mary into his home – i.e., after he completed the Jewish wedding ceremony and claimed full rights to her as his property. From this point, Matt. 1:25 tells us, he had no relations with her; thus making it clear to Matthew’s original audience that he could not possibly have been Jesus’ biological father. And so, once again, if sexual consummation was necessary to confect the marriage (i.e., your position), then Joseph and Mary were not really married, and Jesus was a bastard, and so not a Son of David (according to the Law), and so He cannot be the Messiah, and you are still in your sins. The reality, however, is that Jewish marriage was legal marriage (a matter of property ownership); and so no sexual consummation was needed to make Mary Joseph’s legal wife, and Jesus Joseph’s legal son. Again, you have clearly not thought your position through very carefully.
Again, you show no respect for the narrative or its intended context. Go read the passage again.Actually, if you want historical accuracy, Mary’s perpetual virginity would have been based on Joseph’s choice to remain chaste in expectation for the Kingdom (something quite a few 1st Century Jewish men did - e.g. Matt. 19:12, 1 Cor. 7:36-38, and the witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls). Mary was just Joseph’s virgin-wife (again, see 1 Cor. 7:36-38), and so her virginity was based on his choice to remain chaste (see 1 Cor. 7:39-40). This is very clear from a careful reading of Luke 1:26-38. When Mary is told that she will conceive and give birth to the promised Messiah, the Son of David, she is disturbed and asks “How can this be since I do not know man.” Clearly, there would be no reason to ask this question if Mary intended to have a normal married life with Joseph, for, as v. 26 tell us, she was about to marry a man from the house of David (and thus a potential father of the Messiah), and if Mary and Joseph intended to have a normal marriage, the question would be pointless. It would be presumed that this Child would be conceived in the normal context of their upcoming marriage. However, in response to her concern, Gabriel tells her that the Child will be born by the power of the Most High, and “thus the Child will be called HOLY, the Son of God.”
First of all, Matthew’s Gospel was written for Jewish Christians. The concern was primarily a Jewish and patriarchal one. When a woman was pregnant outside of wedlock, this did not represent her sin so much as it represented a sin against the one who “owned” her - whether her father or her husband. So, whether or not one had made an extraordinary, extra-legal vow to God was beside the point. What is really at play here is the perceived offense against Joseph –i.e., a chaste individual. He intended to take Mary as a virgin-wife - a woman who would remain chaste with him, but care for his household and cook and clear for him, etc. (see again 1 Cor. 7:36-40). But, in the process of confecting this legal marriage, his intended virgin-bride was found to be pregnant, presumably by another man. So, what does Joseph do? Why does he intend to “divorce her quietly”? Well, quite simply, because, if he divorced her quietly, she would a) not be exposed to the punishment of the Law - a punishment that was designed to avenge the perceived offense against HIM (Joseph); and b) If he divorced her quietly, it would make room for Mary’s supposed lover to come forward and claim her for himself. This, again, is clearly the act of a chaste individual who did not feel slighted, but who was incredibly understanding and obviously sympathetic to the likelihood that Mary was not suited to share the type of extraordinary, chaste life that Joseph himself was avowed to. So, he intended to release "the poor girl " from her legal obligations to him and allow her to live a normal life with whomever her supposed lover was.It implied adultery, not rape. Children conceived through rape have long been tolerated and accepted in Jewish culture. If Mary had been raped, Joseph would have had no need to divorce her quietly.
For the same reasons that Mary was told not to be afraid in Luke 1. Here was a couple prepared to live a chaste marriage based on Joseph’s vow of chastity (per Matt. 19:12). Joseph did not want a normal wife, but a wife who would be a virgin-wife and who did not expect sex or children from him. When Gabriel tells Mary (in Luke 1) that she will give birth to a Son of David, she immediately assumes (obviously) that this means that she will cause Joseph to break his vow. This is why she was upset, but Gabriel tells her there’s no need for concern; God Himself will be the Father of this Child, and so the Child will be “holy,” and not the cause of any broken vow. Then, in Matthew 1, Joseph is also greatly concerned about accepting Mary. For starters, he understandably doubts her story that her pregnancy is miraculous, and assumes that he must make way for her supposed human lover to marry her. This is both in sympathetic deference to Mary herself, and in consideration for his own chaste vocation. For how can a chaste man take a wife who is a) now equated with sex and likely to expect it and b) a mother who will, in all likelihood, desire other kids? This is the “fear” that Joseph has.Sorry, but that is a VERY silly and outdated argument. The very same Greek expression is used in this same Gospel, in Matt. 28:20, where Jesus says, “And behold, I am with you always until the end of the age.” Does this imply that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the age?? Not at all. In the same way, Matt. 1:25 is not concerned at all about the subsequent married life of Mary and Joseph, but only with the period up until the time Jesus is born. Matthew’s concern (which was the concern of his original readers) was whether or not it was possible that Joseph might have been Jesus’ biological father. Matthew is assuring us that he was not - that Joseph’s taking of Mary into his home (which was the conclusion of the Jewish wedding ceremony) did not include the normal consummation of the marriage, or any such consummation “until” the Child was born. And, again, Matthew is clearly not concerned about the period after the Child was born, nor was his audience, nor could they be, since if (as I already addressed above) consummation were necessary to unite Joseph and Mary in marriage, then this would mean (based on Matt 1:25) that Jesus was born outside of marriage, and was thus a bastard, and was thus not a legal heir to the House of David - a right He inherited from Joseph. And if Jesus did not possess this status, then He could not be the Messiah, and so you and I are not saved from our sins. This is how incredibly ridiculous your modernist reading is and the type of incredible problems it causes for anyone with an ounce of discernment and maturity. But, don’t take my word for it. Consider what one of your own Protestant founders, John Calvin, has to say about Matt. 1:25:
And likewise Martin Luther:
And likewise Zwingli:
So, were these founders of Protestantism unable to read Scripture properly? If that’s the case, then your problems run even deeper.
Oh, Matthew certainly was. The problem is that you, unlike Obispo (and Calvin, and Luther, and Zwingli ) and everyone else with any common sense until the modern sexual revolution, do not know how to read Matthew properly, but impose your modern preoccupation with sex on him.
No; as Calvin points out above, the verse is meant to address the specific period in order to assure Matthew’s original readers (for whom the Virgin Birth was a new and challenging idea) that Joseph was really not the Child’s father. That’s all that it refers to, and all credible Scripture scholars know and admit this. It’s only sex-obsessed modernists who think otherwise. For goodness sake, if you read the passage itself, there is no reason whatsoever that Matthew would be concerned with the subsequent married life of Joseph and Mary. He speaks in the future tense in reference to Jesus’ birth, not in reference to the type of life that Joseph and Mary would have together after the Lord’s birth. This is obvious to any honest and mature reader.
**Prove it. Show me where - in scripture - that Babylon is not code for Rome when St. Peter wrote his epistles. Show me – with Scripture - that the first Christians were not being persecuted. **
Does it?
Well, whose Greek is better? Yours, or John Calvin’s? And, if you think you can “out-Greek” John Calvin, then what do you do with a NATIVE Greek speaker like St. John Damascene, who likewise writes:So, is your Greek better than that of native speakers?? I don’t think so.
Wrong again. I’m afraid youu don’t know what you’re talking about. Your grasp of Scripture and the Greek language is very poor.
Ah! So then, Jesus was a bastard?! He was born out of wedlock, eh? If this is the case, then He was not a legal Son of David, and so not the Messiah. You want to embrace apostasy? Congratulations!
I’m sorry, but you are ignorant on the subject.
Oh, please!
Says who? First of all, there is no such thing as “possessive tense” in Greek. Possession in Greek is shown via the genitive declension, not through any “tense.” Secondly, the term “brother” or “brothers” is used in the genitive declension numerous times in the NT in contexts that do not refer to blood relations at all (e.g. John 20:17, Acts 22:1, etc.). So, you again reveal that your grasp of Greek is very poor and that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again, the Greek word for “brother” is not only used to refer to full blood relatives in the NT, or in the OT; and, in the OT especially, it is used numerous times to refer to half-brothers -that is, children of the same father but different mothers (e.g. the twelve sons of Jacob).
Not only is that a silly presumption, but it is revealed to be totally impossible by a careful reading of the NT itself; for, if you take Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3, which names two specific “brothers” of Jesus (i.e., “James and Joseph” in Matthew and “James and Joses” in Mark) and you then compare these to Matt. 27:56, 61, & 28:1 and Mark 15:40, 47, and 16:1, it becomes abundantly clear that the mother of these two so-called “brothers” of Jesus" is a) still alive at the time of the Crucifixion and Resurrection and b) clearly a different woman than Jesus’ mother – i.e., the woman who John 19:25 calls “Mary of Clopas,” identifying her as the “sister” (“adelpha” - tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary. So, the “brothers” James and Joseph/Joses were clearly not Jesus’ literal sibilings, and clearly not the sons of His own mother; and, if the term “adelphos” falls once, then it falls EVERY time. This is what you learn if you bother to read Scripture comprehensively and in accord with the ancient and consistent understanding of the Church.
Then why does Christ Himself use the term “adelphos” as a synonym for “neighbor” and 'loved ones" in Matt. 5:43-47? Here, Jesus is using it in the Jewish, tribal sense. That Jewish sense was very broad, referring to any male relative, not just your literal siblings. The NT uses “adelphos” to translate the Hebrew and Aramaic word “ah,” which referred to any male relative. For example, in Genesis 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother,” when Lot was really Abraham’s nephew. The same is true in Gen. 29, were Laban calls Jacob his “brother,” when he is really his nephew. If you want solid proof of this Jewish usage, look at Genesis 27:29 and compare it to Gen. 27:37; here, Isaac gives his blessing to Jacob (thinking he is his brother Esau) by proclaiming: “Be master to your brothers (plural), and may your mother’s sons (plural) bow down to you.” Seems pretty straight-forward, eh?
But, now ask yourself this: How many “brothers” did Jacob have? How many other “sons” did Jacob’s mom Rebecca give birth to?? Only one: Esau himself. So, why then is Isaac speaking in the plural?? V. 37 tells us. Isaac is referring to the entire tribe - to all the male relatives of Jacob. “Brother” was not used literally among the Jews. The term was a very broad and far-reaching one; and comparing Matt 13:55 & Mark 6:3 with Matt 27:56, 61, & 28:1 with Mark 15:40, 47, and 16:1 (and John 19:25) proves that this is how the term “brother” is being applied to the male relatives of Jesus. One cannot escape this fact without ignoring the comprehensive witness of Scripture itself.See above.
You again reveal a profound ignorance of Greek, for the term “desposyni” does not appear in Mark 3:21 at all. Rather, the term here is an idiom which literally reads “hoi par autou” – i.e., “those from his side” - term which some modern translators assume should be rendered as “relatives,” but which more likely (given the context of the passage) refers to His surrounding disciples, in contrast to the scribes and Pharisees. Taken in context, and beginning in v. 20, the passage reads:
Elizabeth was the “relative” of Mary (Luke 1:36), but she did not come from the same household, or even the same tribe as Mary (Mary was of the house of David; Elizabeth was a Levite - see Luke 1:5).No. See above. Jesus’ “brothers” do not arrive until after Jesus rebukes the scribes for claming that He is possessed. By this time, there was no need to seize Him, nor do the brothers try to. Rather, they send word to Him, which is very different. I’m sorry, but you are very sloppy with your exegesis, and with your Greek. The term “desposyni” does not appear in Mark 3:21.
There is no evidence of this whatsoever. It is a modernist distortion. The term (lit. “Those from His side”) almost certainly refers to Peter and the other disciples, i.e., those who were literally in the house with Him. It cannot refer to His “mother and brothers,” since they do not show up until later.
More modernism. The Greek term (“exeste”) does not refer to insanity at all. More correctly, it means “overwrought” or “overwhelmed” - “beside Himself.” The image is one of Jesus being overworked by ministering to those He was healing, to the point where He could not relax and was becoming an apparent danger to Himself because of it. In the Gospel context, Jesus is being depicted as overwhelmed with love for the people, i.e., giving of Himself to them to the point of personal harm or death (Sound familiar?). It’s a literary foreshadowing of His Sacrifice. But, this totally selfless love is perceived by the scribes as demonic possession.Sorry, again, you are not knowledgeable on the subject – consider:
Hippolytus of Rome --A.D. 217
Ireneaus of Lyon - A.D. 180
Ignatius of Antioch - A.D. 107
The Protoevangelium of James --A.D. 100
Note: The Protoevangelium of James (an apocryphal work, but accepted as Scripture by many ancient Christians) was written as a defense of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This was as early as A.D. 100. The work is as old as the Gospel of John.