Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[rinnie]

John was the only Male disciple at the foot of the cross, ergo any family in the area besides his mother had deserted him. I can’t possible believe they did not know about his trial and crucifiction. The comment on cowardice is self evident by the action of all disciples who deserted Christ.

John was the only male Christ could bind to care for his mother, again I call it an act of love rather than a requirement.

There is no biblical proof here that Jesus did or did not have siblings.

Okay todd I"ll bite! Okay if Jesus did have Brothers and Sisters, lets say he did Okay now Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Now Jesus is the Son of God, why if he had brothers and sister as you claim does the bible not say SONS OF GOD. ANd then that would mean that Jesus is not who he claims to be then right? Because Jesus said he and the Father are ONE. Now how could he be one with the Father if he had brothers and sisters?

Now here is another one for you. God said he loved the world so much that he sent his ONLY SON!! Now if Jesus had brothers how could he be the ONLY SON.

Now according to the scripture In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD. Now then the WORD BECAME FLESH. SO God became FLESH JESUS CHRIST. Now how could GOD have brothers and sisters?

If you want to say Jesus had brothers then it could only be 2 The Father and the Holy Spirit The Trinity!! Just kidding. I know that God is ONE. And the Holy Spirit and Jesus as another divine person.

Here is something else to chew on. Luke 2:33-35 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER?? That is what it says. How about 33: 27 He came in the Spirit into the temple and when the Parents Wait right there scripture states his PARENTS.

Or how about the scripture that states is that not Jesus? the SON OF JOSEPH? The Carpenters Son??? Please you can’t take scripture out of context. So was Joseph the Father of Jesus?

Now here is the BEST ONE YET. We know that Jesus is GOD MADE MAN.

Whoever claims that Jesus had brothers has no idea about the Trinity.

The Revelation of the Trinity begins when Jesus told us that HE IS GODS SON. Jesus teaches us that GOD is NOT ONLY the CREATOR of the Universe, BUT also the FATHER of the Eternally begotten SON who became ONE WITH US as the GOD-MAN JESUS CHRIST. Read it, its in Matt 11:27

Now lets go back to step one!! The Holy Spirit is SENT to us BOTH by the Father in the NAME of the SON and by the SON in Person, once he had returned to the Father. The comming of the Holy Spirit completes the revelation of the TRINITY.

So how can anyone say they understand the Trinity, and then turn around and say there is no Biblical proof. It it is not biblical proof I don’t know what is.

The Holy Spirit existed from the beginning of time, the same as the Father did, and the Son. Why? Simple they are all ONE IN BEING!! ONE GOD!!

Now go back to scripture. How are the Apostles told to baptise. Simple in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3 Distinct Person’s from ONE DIVINITY.

Anyone who says that Jesus had brothers and sisters again cannot understand the Trinity. And anyone who says there is not Proof does not understand the Trinity. There is ONLY ONE GOD. From the beginning of Time!!

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin this interpretation is how “you” chose to interpret. And with the only Bible ever written in the world which states this. And if you read what the author of that particular BIble said in translation of 1:18 he doesn’t reach the same conlusion as you either,

And how in the world you jump to that conclusion in King James and NIV is beyond me. “Before they came together” has no relation to the topic we are talking about?

As for brothers? Some contend these were Josephs children though a previous marriage. Others contend this is to coin a phrase of followers other that Disciples. Other speculate the actual meaning of Christ brother through Joseph and Mary, others relatives.

Yet the BIble never specifically states this?

And to the OP by Jewish law, why wasn’t Mary and this responsbilty left to Brothers as Law states. Yet we have the Bible specifically mentioning John?

So we don’t actually know do we?

This is his conclusion, He talkes about the 3 stages of Jewish marriage. Next he goes on to discuss why the virgin birth is important to the Christian faith. Then he goes on an talkes about Josep’s difficulties he would face after discovering that Mary was pergant. So he concentrated on this and not on other things about the verses. Thats not to say that I’m incorrect because he concentrated on something different.

When a married couple has sexual relations it is said that they have come together. In other words, Consummate the marriage.
King James says, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on the wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” Lets see, before they came together, before they had marital relations, still being a virgin. This all means not having marital relations.

King James also says in Matthew 1 :25, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son…”

Yes it does state this. “His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.” “Your mother and brothers are here to see you.” “His sisters live among us.” Pertty straight forward that Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary.
There is nothing that says Joseph was married before and that he had children from that marriage.

Well his brothers did not believe who Jesus claimed to be. So they did not hang around Jesus. John was there, one of his closest friends. There was no one else there, no brothers of his there, just John so being that he was dying and had no time to wait for word to get to his brothers if someone was trying to get word to them, he did what he thought best for his mother since his brothers were not present at that time. Besides Jesus did go against Jewish law from time to time. So this would be in character for Jesus.

 

[rinnie]

Notice in Matthew 1:18 where it says. "But while she was still a virgin. With this statement its clear that Mary didn’t stay a virgin all her life.
No I think Mary woul have raised all her children the same way. I don’t think she would give special attention to Jesus and not the others. Being a normal mother, which she was, she would treat her children, love her children, take care of her children the way a mother should. I’m sure she had to disipline her children, including Jesus, but this would in no way affect her spirituality. That is a mother’s/parents duty. I think Mary is a better person then to treat children in different way.

Sorry Rev Kev but Luke 1:31-34 just blew your theory out of the water.

Now why did Mary say to the Angel when the Angel told her she WILL conceive) Will means in the future. Now why did she say HOW SHALL THIS BE then?

If the Angel came and said you WILL conceive a Son, she would have thought Oh, Okay. What would make her think to say HOW shall this be? Only one reason. She took a vow of virginity.

Because you cannot tell me that a women that is about to be married does not know how a baby is conceived. And why did she ask that question BEFORE the Angel told her by the Power of the Holy Spirit. The angel did not say you HAVE conceived. Then it would make sense for her to say HOW!!

There is only one reason Mary responded the way she did. She made a vow to God and in those days was not odd. Just like a Nun would today. It would be the same if a Nun as told she will conceive. She would be like But I took a vow to God to be with NO MAN. Explain it Rev Kev! You can’t because my way is the only way that makes sense.

 

[rev_kevin]

The mention of “brothers” does not mean uterine brothers. Lot is called the brother of Abraham when he was his nephew which demonstrates the diverse usage.

Besides the identification of brother what evidence is there?

The brothers give advice to Jesus which would go against the custom of the day if they were younger. The versus show that Jesus was the younger. They could not be Mary’s children

Mark 3:21 demonstrates for that society the relatives are older otherwise it would go against the customs of the society.

Mary is never identified as a mother of anyone but Jesus.

No children are mentioned at the temple when Jesus was lost.

Jesus provides for Mary at the cross. Only necessary if Jesus was an only child.

You hit the nail on the head, the word has diverse usages so with this in mind it could also mean that they were his uterin brothers.

You are correct about Lot but also look at Andrew and his brother Simon, Peter and his brother James. Here we see the same word “brother.” Are they uterin brothers, counsins, kinsmen, relatives? So it is very plausable that when they say about Jesus “his brothers and sisters” that its the same and Andrew and his brother Simon or Peter and his brother James.

James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas. Identification of his brothers.

Yes customs of the day, but customes are not law so they could in deed give their older brother advice without any punishment for breaking the law.

Once again customs not law.

“Is this not the carpenters son, his mother named Mary and his brothers…” Looks like they would be the children of Mary. Your Mother and brothers are here to talk to you." Looks like the children of Mary as well.

1 They might not have been born yet.
2.The writer was not concentrating on them but on what Jesus was doing.
Remember not everything is written in the Bible of what happened. For instance where is it written what Jesus did the first 12 years of his life? Then where is it written what happened from the age of 12 till he was baptized by John the Baptist?

Not so. Jesus brothers were not around him because they did not believe who he said he was, so they did not hang around Jesus. And Jesus often went agains Jewish law so the would not be out of character for Jesus to do this.

 

[rinnie]

There are 3 steps in a Jewish marriage.
First, the 2 families agreed to the union
Second, a public announcement was made. At this point, the couple was “engaged.” This was similar to engagement today except that their relationship could be broken only through death or divorce.{even though sexual relations were not yet permitted}.
Third, the couple was married and began living together.
Lack of knowledge, I don’t think so. There are 3 stages not 2 stages.

They were not married yet.
Read verse 24, “when Joseph woke up. he did what the angel of the Lord commanded. He brought Mary home to be his wife, but she remained a virgin until her son was born.”
This only makes my point correct, They were not married when the angel came to Mary.

Now seeing that having sexual relation were not permitted during the engagement, your husband thing is not in play here yet. Yes she would have relations with him once they were married but that had not occured yet.
Why would she have to say to the angel that they were not living together yet, its a given because the 3rd stage has not yet happened, so they did not live together until they were married.

Not a odd question because they were not married yet.

My Scripture says Mary said How can this be since I have NO RELATIONS with a Man? Now why would she say that? What a strange thing for a women who is betrothed to a man to say would you not agree? Unless of course they have agreed to live as Sister and Brother.

 

[rev_kevin]

Sorry Rev Kev but Luke 1:31-34 just blew your theory out of the water.

Now why did Mary say to the Angel when the Angel told her she WILL conceive) Will means in the future. Now why did she say HOW SHALL THIS BE then?

If the Angel came and said you WILL conceive a Son, she would have thought Oh, Okay. What would make her think to say HOW shall this be? Only one reason. She took a vow of virginity.

Because you cannot tell me that a women that is about to be married does not know how a baby is conceived. And why did she ask that question BEFORE the Angel told her by the Power of the Holy Spirit. The angel did not say you HAVE conceived. Then it would make sense for her to say HOW!!

There is only one reason Mary responded the way she did. She made a vow to God and in those days was not odd. Just like a Nun would today. It would be the same if a Nun as told she will conceive. She would be like But I took a vow to God to be with NO MAN. Explain it Rev Kev! You can’t because my way is the only way that makes sense.

Not so fast there, Mary was not yet pregnant was she?
Mary said, “How can I have a baby, I’m a virgin?” or the K.J. version “How shall this be, seeing I know no man?” Your version, “How shall this be?” Why would she say that because she was wondering who she was going to get pregnant. Remember she was not pregnant yet, She was just being told about it.

If I say to you, “Your going to marry Jane, you would respond, how can this be, I don’t know anybody named Jane?”

If someone came to you, assuming you are a man, and said you are going to have a baby, would you say OH, OK or would you say, how can this be, I’m a man?"
Remember Mary was confused and disturbed so her natural responce would be to question it. That would be a normal responce from anyone.

OK get for real what do you think she meant when she said, I know no man. Of course she knew how babies are concieved.

What do you expect her to ask after being told that she will become pregnant and have a son. Why do you think she should have had to wait until she was told by the HS. It really don’t matter when she asked.

The angel said you are going to have a baby, Mary said How can this be. This is a logical question since she is still a virgin.How am I going to have a baby, I’m a virgin. Its kind of like saying How can I do that, I don’t have a hammer.

You answered the question for me, Mary did not say, “I took a vow to God to be with no man” now did she, she questioned the angel, How can this be, I know no man." Big difference in the wording and the meaning.
There you are explained.

 

[rev_kevin]

My Scripture says Mary said How can this be since I have NO RELATIONS with a Man? Now why would she say that? What a strange thing for a women who is betrothed to a man to say would you not agree? Unless of course they have agreed to live as Sister and Brother.

Why is it strange, they were not married yet,
By saying what you are saying here, you are condoning pre-marital sex, your saying its ok. Remember they were engaged, not married. “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded, He brought Mary home to be his wife, but she remained a virgin until her son was born.” See no pre-marital sex by them. They were not married because it says “He brought Mary home to be his wife.” If she was already his wife,

1. The angel would not tell Joseph, "do not be afraid to go ahead with your marriage to Mary.
2. Why would Joseph take his wife home to be his wife? Wouldn’t he just take his wife homeif she was his wife?

 

[joe370]

[rev **kevin

;7142546]Why is it strange, they were not married yet,
By saying what you are saying here, you are condoning pre-marital sex, your saying its ok.

I didn’t get that at all from Rinnie. Why would Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, say, how can this be since I have NO RELATIONS, if she planned on having relations like any normal married couple, once married? A normal reaction for Mary, would be to assume that her and Joseph, (who were not having relations because they were not married yet) - once married, would have relations, and a child - right?

 

[adrift]

There are 3 steps in a Jewish marriage.
First, the 2 families agreed to the union.

This website disagrees with you Judaism 101

The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word “kiddushin” comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning “sanctified.” It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other.

Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete.

Scripture disagrees with you.

Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.

Mary and Joseph were married. Even IF it was a modern engagement a woman would assume her future husband would be the child’s father unless there was another reason to believe otherwise. Mary taking a vow would have been such a reason. Your explanation that she was unmarried and a virgin goes against the culture and what is stated in scripture.
Scripture is quite clear that Mary and Joseph was in the first part of the marriage, the Kiddushin. That this is true is the fact that Joseph wanted to divorce her privately.

Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly

If there was no marriage, there could be no divorce.
The angel does not state when Mary would become pregnant. Mary would have assumed after the second part of the marriage hence her question is weird unless there was another reason which of course there was.

Why is it strange, they were not married yet,They were married.
By saying what you are saying here, you are condoning pre-marital sex, your saying its ok. Remember they were engaged, not married.It is clear from scripture that they were married. “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded, He brought Mary home to be his wife, but she remained a virgin until her son was born.” See no pre-marital sex by them. They were not married because it says “He brought Mary home to be his wife.” That is not what it says. It says that he was to take her into his home which was the second part of marriageIf she was already his wife,

1. The angel would not tell Joseph, "do not be afraid to go ahead with your marriage to Mary.He was telling him to complete the marriage ceremony
2. Why would Joseph take his wife home to be his wife? Wouldn’t he just take his wife home if she was his wife?This is ignorance of how marriage occured see above. Your ignoring that scripture calls Mary his wife and Joseph her husband
   Reply With Quote

 

[adrift]

I didn’t get that at all from Rinnie. Why would Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, say, how can this be since I have NO RELATIONS, if she planned on having relations like any normal married couple, once married? A normal reaction for Mary, would be to assume that her and Joseph, (who were not having relations because they were not married yet) - once married, would have relations, and a child - right?

 

[adrift]

Not so fast there, Mary was not yet pregnant was she?
Mary said, “How can I have a baby, I’m a virgin?” or the K.J. version “How shall this be, seeing I know no man?” Your version, “How shall this be?” Why would she say that because she was wondering who she was going to get pregnant. Remember she was not pregnant yet, She was just being told about it.

Your sentence that I underlined isn’t clear. As it reads, Mary is going to get someone pregnant

If I say to you, “Your going to marry Jane, you would respond, how can this be, I don’t know anybody named Jane?”

Problem with this comparison is that Mary knew who she was married to.

If someone came to you, assuming you are a man, and said you are going to have a baby, would you say OH, OK or would you say, how can this be, I’m a man?"
Remember Mary was confused and disturbed so her natural responce would be to question it. That would be a normal responce from anyone.

The normal response for a married woman however was not to say that they don’t have relations. They would assume that they would. The natural response for a woman even just engaged to be told they would have a son would be to assume that it would be with the one they were marrying. Your line of reasoning would be for one who was not going to be married ever. That would make sense.
OK get for real what do you think she meant when she said, I know no man. Of course she knew how babies are concieved.

What do you expect her to ask after being told that she will become pregnant and have a son. Why do you think she should have had to wait until she was told by the HS. It really don’t matter when she asked.

The angel said you are going to have a baby, Mary said How can this be. This is a logical question since she is still a virgin.How am I going to have a baby, I’m a virgin. Its kind of like saying How can I do that, I don’t have a hammer.

Not logical for an engaged women much less for a married on.

You answered the question for me, Mary did not say, “I took a vow to God to be with no man” now did she, she questioned the angel, How can this be, I know no man." Big difference in the wording and the meaning.
There you are explained.

You think? Mary did not say Yeah Joseph and I will have a child. Nope she curiously says I know not man. Not Joseph and I are not having relations but I do not know man period. She is saying I do not have relations with anyone. Her question was really does God want me to break my vow? Then angel answers in the negative.

 

[adrift]

You hit the nail on the head, the word has diverse usages so with this in mind it could also mean that they were his uterin brothers.
.

Jesus did go against custom but that does not mean that others did too. No it would not be likely that they would have treated an older brother in a dishonorable way because it would be themselves they dishonored.
The evidence is against the brothers mentioned being uterine. There is no scripture that names anyone else than Jesus as being the son of Mary.

It was more than custom concerning Mary. Jesus wouldn’t have been concerned about His mother unless there was no one to care for her. That would be the case since He was an only child.

 

[rev_kevin]

This website disagrees with you Judaism 101

Scripture disagrees with you.

Mary and Joseph were married. Even IF it was a modern engagement a woman would assume her future husband would be the child’s father unless there was another reason to believe otherwise. Mary taking a vow would have been such a reason. Your explanation that she was unmarried and a virgin goes against the culture and what is stated in scripture.
Scripture is quite clear that Mary and Joseph was in the first part of the marriage, the Kiddushin. That this is true is the fact that Joseph wanted to divorce her privately.

If there was no marriage, there could be no divorce.
The angel does not state when Mary would become pregnant. Mary would have assumed after the second part of the marriage hence her question is weird unless there was another reason which of course there was.

Actually there are more then 3 steps.
First, the father of the groom made the arrangements for the marriage and paid the bride price. Often the bride and groom did not meet until their wedding day.
Second. which is a year later. The groom would fetch the bride from her fathers house.
In connection with this step 2 other things should be noted.

1. It was the father of the groom who determined the timing.
2. A place must be prepared for her as their abode.
   Third, is the wedding ceremony and when they would consummate.the marriage.
   Fourth, the marriage feast that would last for several days.

No scripture don’t disagree with me. Show me where scripture gives the steps.

Depending on what Jewish marriage you look at. There are several different way. The one I gave is from the time of Jesus.

No they did not have to be married to get a divorce. Once engaged the only way to get out of it would be death or divorce.

You are correct when you say the Bible don’t say when she became pregnant.

No Mary would probable assume after the wedding when the marriage would be consummated. Not before this.

 

[rev_kevin]

Jesus did go against custom but that does not mean that others did too. No it would not be likely that they would have treated an older brother in a dishonorable way because it would be themselves they dishonored.
The evidence is against the brothers mentioned being uterine. There is no scripture that names anyone else than Jesus as being the son of Mary.

It was more than custom concerning Mary. Jesus wouldn’t have been concerned about His mother unless there was no one to care for her. That would be the case since He was an only child.

No I must disagree with you. Its clear that Mary had other children besides Jesus. I have given you scripture evidence to the fact but you can not see it. It clearly says that the brothers tried to advise Jesus but once again you can not see it.
The evidence is there about Jesus having brothers and sister but you have been taught that that is not so because according to the CC teachings Mary must remain a virgin and this would go against their teachings. To say otherwise would put the CC’s teaching as fallable. Its clear that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born, its clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Its as clear as the nose on your face.

 

[joe370]

Hey Kevin…

Para. 3. I didn’t know there were rules that we, meaning non-Catholics, had to use the Bible only. I believe I can use any resource I choose to use.

My bad. I thought you were a sola scriptura advocate.

So are you saying the Bible is “fallible.” If so show me the “fallible” Book, Chapter, and Verses please.

If I thought that, then I would have said that, but I did not.

Para. 5. Where does it say in the Bible they were not his 1/2 brothers?

It doesn’t.

Good point. They could have been His half brothers.

Why would the Bible state “Is this not the carpenters son, his mother Mary and his brothers…”

Because they were His brothers. Just as Joseph, James, and Jude, sons of Alphaeus, (who were not the sons of Mary and Joseph) - could have been Jesus’ brothers.

Like you said: Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus’ brothers were not his 1/2 brothers? Take the Brady bunch for example: the boys were considered the brothers of the girls (just as Jesus was considered the brother of James, Joseph…) - but Mrs. Brady was not the biological mother of the boys just as Mary did not have to be the biological mother of James, Joseph… I cannot prove that you are wrong but you can’t prove that I am wrong - right?

To make your point valid it would have to say “Is this not the carpenters son, his mother Mary and the sons …of Alphaeus or of Zebedee” But it don’t say that now does it.

You are so right my friend. Perhaps there was another Joseph, Simon, Jude and James. Prove to me that these unknown brothers could not be Jesus’ half brothers or brothers from an extended family, and I will concede your point! Show me where the bible says: Mary mother of Jesus and Simon and Joseph and Jude and James? Now that would be pretty compelling but it still would not rule out the possibility that those other men could have been Jesus’ half brothers or brothers from extended family which would have been the case with James, Jude and Joseph, sons of Alphaeus if these particular fellows were who they were talking about when they said:

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”

Doesn’t it seem possible that these 4 fellows could be the same 4 fellows that were the sons of Alphaeus with the exception of Simon who was not from Nazareth?

So how do you know that it is talking about Joseph, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jesus himself? Jesus is not mentioned, the only ones mentioned is Mary and the brothers by name.

I cannot prove conclusively that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon were not the sons of Mary and Joseph or that they are the sons of Joseph and Mary, nor can you.

Using scripture prove to me that those men were in fact the sons of Mary and Joseph, and not brothers from an extended family, which would have been the case with James, Joseph, Jude, sons of Alphaeus and Simon the Canaanite?

Para. 6. No there is no unnamed James.
Incorrect as I stated above in Para. 5.
Once again Incorrect Jesus was not a only child.

Prove it? Prove that Mary and Joseph had other sons? Something like: …Jesus’ mother Mary, and her other sons, Joseph, Simon, Jude and James.

Para. 7. No we don’t agree. How do you know they are not the sons of Joseph.

Exactly. The brothers of Jesus could be Joseph’s sons from a prior marriage.

Well I noticed you are using the words “HOLY FAMILY” meaning God, Mary and Jesus correct?

Nope! Meaning Joseph, Mary and Jesus…

 

[adrift]

Actually there are more then 3 steps.
First, the father of the groom made the arrangements for the marriage and paid the bride price. Often the bride and groom did not meet until their wedding day.
Second. which is a year later. The groom would fetch the bride from her fathers house.
In connection with this step 2 other things should be noted.

1. It was the father of the groom who determined the timing.
2. A place must be prepared for her as their abode.
   Third, is the wedding ceremony and when they would consummate.the marriage.
   Fourth, the marriage feast that would last for several days.

It doesn’t really matter how many steps. What you are acknowledging is that there were steps. You are incorrect about the wedding ceremony. It took place with the betrothal. that is when the marriage feast took place.

No scripture don’t disagree with me. Show me where scripture gives the steps.

When I referred to scripture disagreeing with you I am referring to the fact that scripture calls Joseph her husband and Mary his wife. If they weren’t married, they wouldn’t be husband and wife.

Depending on what Jewish marriage you look at. There are several different way. The one I gave is from the time of Jesus.

No you did not. What I gave was.

No they did not have to be married to get a divorce. Once engaged the only way to get out of it would be death or divorce.

:whacky: The definition of divorce is

1
: the action or an instance of legally dissolving a marriage

Hence in order for Joseph to get a divorce there first had to be a marriage.

No Mary would probable assume after the wedding when the marriage would be consummated. Not before this.]

So you agree with me. Mary would have assumed this happening after Joseph took her into his home.

 

[adrift]

No I must disagree with you. Its clear that Mary had other children besides Jesus. I have given you scripture evidence to the fact but you can not see it. It clearly says that the brothers tried to advise Jesus but once again you can not see it.

This would have been against their culture to give an older person advise. You don’t want to see this. It is clear that they were not uterine brothers but cousins.

The evidence is there about Jesus having brothers and sister but you have been taught that that is not so because according to the CC teachings Mary must remain a virgin and this would go against their teachings. To say otherwise would put the CC’s teaching as fallable. Its clear that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born, its clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Its as clear as the nose on your face.

It is clear that these were not. It is unbelievable to me that once God had been in Mary’s womb that mere man would dare to touch her. It is because of the anti-catholic bias that you cannot see this.

 

[joe370]

No I must disagree with you. Its clear that Mary had other children besides Jesus. I have given you scripture evidence to the fact but you can not see it. It clearly says that the brothers tried to advise Jesus but once again you can not see it.
The evidence is there about Jesus having brothers and sister but you have been taught that that is not so because according to the CC teachings Mary must remain a virgin and this would go against their teachings. To say otherwise would put the CC’s teaching as fallable. Its clear that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born, its clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Its as clear as the nose on your face.

Kevin, just curious: do you defer to the teachings of any one particular church leadership? If so do they teach fallibly or infallibly? I know of no protestant Pastor that claims to teach erroneous doctrine, which means that they must teach error free doctrine, or infallible doctrine.

 

[joe370]

=rinnie;7142380]Sorry Rev Kev but Luke 1:31-34 just blew your theory out of the water.

Now why did Mary say to the Angel when the Angel told her she WILL conceive) Will means in the future. Now why did she say HOW SHALL THIS BE then?

If the Angel came and said you WILL conceive a Son, she would have thought Oh, Okay. What would make her think to say HOW shall this be? Only one reason. She took a vow of virginity.

Because you cannot tell me that a women that is about to be married does not know how a baby is conceived. And why did she ask that question BEFORE the Angel told her by the Power of the Holy Spirit. The angel did not say you HAVE conceived. Then it would make sense for her to say HOW!!

There is only one reason Mary responded the way she did. She made a vow to God and in those days was not odd. Just like a Nun would today. It would be the same if a Nun as told she will conceive. She would be like But I took a vow to God to be with NO MAN. Explain it Rev Kev! You can’t because my way is the only way that makes sense.

Rinnie, what you have stated is the only logical conclusion to draw. it really is the only thing that makes sense. Even as a former non-Catholic, what you have just stated was the only thing that came to my mind.

 

[joe370]

adrift;7142750]This would have been against their culture to give an older person advise. You don’t want to see this. It is clear that they were not uterine brothers but cousins.

It is clear that these were not. It is unbelievable to me that once God had been in Mary’s womb that mere man would dare to touch her. It is because of the anti-catholic bias that you cannot see this.

When I put myself in Joseph’s shoes, one thing I know with certainty, is the fact that I would never view Mary in a carnal way after giving birth to God. I would, as Joseph, see her as a holy vessel of God consecrated to God, with only one spouse, which of course is the holy spirit. What an incredibly unique relationship Mary must have had with God, still has with God.

Yes, it’s pretty clear that James, Joseph and Jude, sons of Alphaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, were the brothers of Jesus, which means that they were His cousins, as oppose to sons of Joseph. I cannot prove this definitively but nor can Kevin disprove it. It really comes down to trusting the church founded by Jesus which is forever guided by the HS into all truth.