Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Hello, and welcome to a collection of non denominational comments related to the holy
family which will likely never be seen mentioned in pageants, plays, movies, and/or
television specials.

Buen Camino

(Pleasant Journey)
_
 
Last edited:

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Matt 1:18-19 . . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be
with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and
not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away quietly.

A righteous man is defined by Luke 1:6 as observing all the Lord's commandments
and regulations blamelessly. The word "all" suggests to me that Joseph wasn't
compliant with just some of the Lord's wishes, nor even most, rather, the whole ball
of wax. That's an amazing track record.

FAQ: Wasn't Joseph supposed to have his betrothed stoned for sleeping around?
(Deut 22:23-27)

A: The covenanted law that Moses' people agreed upon with God in the Old
Testament requires the testimony of a minimum of two witnesses for the
prosecution in capital cases.

Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is
worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be
put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to
death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away
from among you.

Sans witnesses even Joseph himself became a suspect; in point of fact, the prime
suspect.

NOTE: Compare the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus had
to dismiss the woman because there was no one willing to testify against her. And
even had he known by omniscience that the woman was guilty, the Lord couldn't
testify against her because he wasn't a legitimate witness; and besides, he
would've been the only one, whereas the Jews' covenanted law requires a minimum
of two.
_
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As I understand it, the "stoning" of a person for such had always been rare and was abandoned by the time of Jesus. Yes , Joseph COULD (perhaps) have demanded such, but he decided to "divorce her but privately."
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Matt 1:19 . . Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to
disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly.

The Greek word translated "put away" is somewhat ambiguous. It can not only
refer to divorce, but also freeing someone from a debt and/or an obligation; for
example Matt 18:27 and Matt 27:15-26.

Seeing as how Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet fully married, then I suggest
we go with the second meaning, viz: Joseph was minded to break the engagement.

However, if others prefer "divorce" that's okay too as I feel that viewers are entitled
to a second opinion.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
As I understand it, the "stoning" of a person for such had always been rare and was
abandoned by the time of Jesus. Yes , Joseph COULD (perhaps) have demanded
such


Joseph was a righteous man (Matt 1:19) which is defined by Luke 1:6 as observing all
the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

Joseph would've become unrighteousness had he requested Jesus' mom to be
executed while lacking the required number of witnesses in capital cases.

Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is
worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be
put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to
death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away
from among you.

Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by
carrying them out.
_
 
Last edited:

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Matt 1:19 . . And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man,

Curiously, the Bible doesn't say one way or the other whether Mary was righteous.
By means of a judicious blend of extrapolation and fact; we might at least suggest
that she was.

For example:

Luke 1:30 . . Mary, you have found favor with God.

The Greek word translated "favor" is also translated grace in quite a few places. So
we could translate Luke 1:30 like this:

"you have found grace with God."

That wasn't the first time someone found grace with God. Noah did too.

Gen 6:8 . . Noah found grace in the eyes of The Lord.

And:

Gen 6:9 . . Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time,

I might be taking liberties here; but if Noah found grace with God, and he was
righteous and blameless among the people of his time; then seeing as how Mary
found grace with God, then maybe we can say that she too was righteous and
blameless among the people of her time.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Continuing from post No.6

Righteousness-- as it's presented in the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph --is
exemplified by the righteousness attributed to the Jewish parents of the Lord's
cousin; John the Baptist.

Luke 1:5-6 . .There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest
named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of
Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God,
walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The apostle Paul was another Jew who walked in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Phil 3:5-6 . . Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of
Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews . . . touching the righteousness which is in
the law, blameless.

It sometimes surprises people that Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian; rather, he was
born under the law and circumcised the eighth day --as such he was a Jew whose
righteousness was defined by the righteousness which is in the law.

John 8:46 . . Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?

They couldn't because according to Moses' law, Jesus' piety was flawless.

Anyway: I really don't think it's a good idea to inject Christianity's by-faith
righteousness into the story of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph seeing as how those folks
were all Jews whose righteousness was measured by the covenant that Moses'
people agreed upon with God in the Old Testament-- a.k.a. the law.

Now, it's true that the righteousness which is in the law isn't righteous enough to
attain heaven. However, the righteousness which is in the Jews' covenant is just as
righteous in our day as it was back then.

Rom 3:31 . . Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! On the
contrary, we establish the law.

Rom 7:12 . . The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Matt 1:18 . . When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they
came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Webster's defines "betroth" as to give in marriage and/or to promise to marry. The
very same Greek word for betroth is employed again to describe the couple's
relationship on the road to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:5)

The Greek word translated "came together" means conjoin. I should think that word
needs no defining. (Well, maybe for underage children it might need defining.)

Matthew 1:18-24 refers to Joseph and Jesus' mom as husband and wife. But I have
it on good authority that it was the custom in those days for couples to be known
as someone's husband and/or someone's wife during the engagement period; which
could be up to ten or twelve months prior to the actual nuptials.

Matthew 1:24 is translated in some versions to imply-- in so many words --that
Joseph went and got Mary and brought her to his home. But a Greek word for home
isn't actually in the manuscript. Apparently "home" in the English text is an
arbitrary embellishment. It just says he took her; like this:

"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him, and took her as his wife"

The Greek word for "took" has a variety of meanings, one of which is to accept. In
other words: Matt 1:24 just means that Joseph changed his mind about breaking
the engagement and agreed to go through with the wedding; it doesn't mean they
started living together.
_
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Matt 1:18 . . When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they
came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.




Not a word there about whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations. Ever.

Not a word there about whether Mary bore any child or children other than Jesus.



Matthew 1:18-24

Not a word there about whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations. Ever.

Not a word there about whether Mary bore any child or children other than Jesus.



Matthew 1:24

Not a word there about whether Mary and Joseph had sexual relations. Ever.

Not a word there about whether Mary bore any child or children other than Jesus.



"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him, and took her as his wife"

The Greek word for "took" has a variety of meanings, one of which is to accept. In
other words: Matt 1:24 just means that Joseph changed his mind about breaking
the engagement and agreed to go through with the wedding; it doesn't mean they
started living together.

True.





.
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Matt 1:22-23 . . Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
of the Lord by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall
bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

That prophecy is located in Isaiah 7:14 which is commonly believed to specifically
predict Jesus; but it primarily speaks into events back in the Old Testament.

Sometimes the word "fulfill" and/or "fulfilled" refers to applying a prophecy to
something other than what it was originally intended. For example; the virgin
spoken of in Isa 7:1-25 was initially a young girl in the southern kingdom during
king Ahaz's reign. In order for her to be of any use to him at all for a sign, it was
necessary for the girl to be someone with whom Ahaz was familiar.

FYI: The Hebrew word for "virgin" in Isa 7:14 is 'almah (al-maw') which simply
means a young girl, i.e. it has more to do with age than carnal experience. The New
Testament equivalent is parthenos (par-then'-os) which means pretty much the
same thing. Without some additional information, it is impossible to determine
whether an 'almah and/or a parthenos has, or has not, experienced carnal relations
with a man.

Take Rebecca for example. She was an 'almah (Gen 24:43). But she was also a
bethuwlah (beth-oo-law') which is another Hebrew word for virgins. In Rebecca's
case, the Bible informs us that she was an 'almah/bethuwlah who had not yet
experienced carnal relations with a man when Abraham's servant met with her.
(Gen 24:16)

Mary was a parthenos (Luke 1:26-27). If that were all that's said about her, we'd
only know that she was a young girl. However, Mary herself informs us that she
had not yet experienced carnal relations with a man when the angel met with her.
(Luke 1:34)

My point of all this is that we should never assume that the word "virgin" always,
and without exception, indicates someone who's never been to bed with anyone.

Matt 1:23 . . they will call him Immanuel-- which means "God with us"

Immanuel isn't supposed to be taken as a name for God, nor taken to mean that
God is on-site in person. It actually speaks of providence; for example:

Luke 7:16-17 . . And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God,
saying: A great prophet has arisen among us! And: God has visited His people! And
this report concerning him went out all over Judea, and in all the surrounding
district.

It would be nice if God were with everyone following this thread just as He was with
Ahaz when the king and his people were in danger of invasion from the north; and
as He was with Judea when the great prophet Jesus went about restoring life to the
dead; and curing the sick, the lame, and the blind.
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
It's remarkable the number of people I encounter online who sincerely believe that
Joseph shared a life with Jesus' mom with no intention of ever having any
children by her. In other words; they actually believe that Joseph was celibate in
his own home; and consequently Mary too: a young girl in the prime of life no less.
I can't imagine a more dysfunctional marriage than that. (Imagine kids growing up
in a home where parents never hug, kiss, or display the slightest feelings of
romantic affection for each other.)

Since Mary was already engaged to Joseph prior to Gabriel's announcement; the
logical conclusion is that she was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual reasons that
Jewish girls wanted a Jewish husband-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish man,
and raise a Jewish family.

And since Joseph was already engaged to Mary prior to the dream sequence, the
logical conclusion is that he was marrying a Jewish girl for the usual reasons that
Jewish guys wanted a Jewish wife-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish woman,
and raise a Jewish family.

Since the inspired Gospel narratives do not clearly, and without ambiguity, indicate
otherwise, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of human experience, that
Joseph and Mary fully intended to sleep together after their wedding just like every
other normal Jewish couple did back then.

Another point we should address is that in some versions of Christianity, it's a sin to
marry with no intent of producing children. That "sin" is based upon a very early
blessing in the book of Genesis.

Gen 1:28 . .God blessed them and said to them; Be fruitful and increase in
number

Some folks regard that blessing as a commandment instead of empowerment.
Therefore, had Mary and Joseph made no attempt whatsoever to produce children
together, then they would've been guilty of disobeying that which some folks regard
as a divine fiat. It gets worse.

The Bible's God tempts no man to sin (Jas 1:13). So if He had directed Mary and
Joseph into a celibate, platonic marriage-- thus forcing them to disobey His early
fiat --then according to some people's thinking; God would have been guilty of
leading Jesus' parents into sin.

A serious ethnical point that should be noted is that Joseph and his wife were both
Abraham's posterity. God early-on blessed their ancestor with this remark:

Gen 22:17 . . In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy
seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore.

Had Joseph not attempted to produce children of his own with his wife, he would
have failed to participate in Abraham's blessing and do his part in perpetuating his
ancestor's seed. In other words: it was Joseph's sacred privilege, and his sacred
duty, to make an honest attempt to have children with Jesus' mom.
_
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's remarkable the number of people I encounter online who sincerely believe that
Joseph shared a life with Jesus' mom with no intention of ever having any
children by her.


What seems REMARKABLE to me is why so many people CARE if and how often married couples has sex. I guess there is no such thing as marital privacy and respect anymore, everyone thinks it is there god-given right to speculate about couples and SHOUT all over the internet (and everywhere else) about their sexual obsessions, speculations and such. Incredible.




I can't imagine a more dysfunctional marriage than that.


1. Who are YOU to tell another couple (whom you've never met) that their marriage is dysfunctional? IF a couple freely and mutually agrees to have sex 0-20 times a day.... and this is their mutual choice .... this impacts no one else in any way.... and this "works" for both of them.... then what business is it of yours? Who are you to go around asking couples you've never met how often they have sex and then shouting to them (and everyone self behind their back) how dysfunctional they are? IF you were a licensed marriage counselor and IF they came to you indicating it was not mutually agreeable and doesn't work for them, THEN maybe you'd have some right to give your opinion, but you aren't and they aren't. Do you go around asking couples you've never met if and how often they have sex? Do you then denounce some as dysfunctional? And if you do, do they give a rip what you think?

2. We form dogma by Scripture. If you have a verse that says, "Mary and Joseph had lotsa awesome sex after Jesus was born" then QUOTE THE VERSE. If you have a verse that says, "Mary and Joseph never once had sex" then QUOTE that verse. THEN you can state something about their supremely private sex lives and have some basis for dogma (and I guess have divine permission to speak of this). But as you've proven, you have neither. You speculate..... but why do you desire to speculate about the sex lives of couples you've never met and don't know? Why do you appoint yourself to declare what is right for THEM and dysfunctional for THEM? Did Mary and Joseph do this about you and your spouse?




(Imagine kids growing upin a home where parents never hug, kiss, or display the slightest feelings of
romantic affection for each other.)


1. I disagree with you that all persons who hug ERGO have lotsa sex.

2. No one has EVER claimed that Mary and Joseph never hugged.

3. This may shock you, but it is not at all uncommon for people to marry for reasons OTHER than sex (or even romance).




it has to be assumed


1. "When you ASS-SUME, it makes an ___________ of you and me." Know that proverb?

2. Who said it HAS to be assumed? Who has mandated this from you?

3. Assumption is not the basis for dogma. Either one that Mary and Joseph DID have zillions of exchanges of awesome hot sex....or that they never did... or anything inbetween.





.
 
Last edited:

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
On the topic of assumptions, it's also dangerous to assume that any given person is biologically capable of having children. I personally know at least four couples who all married planning to have children only to find nature had other ideas.

As Josiah mentioned, whether a couple has sex once a decade or 20 times a day is their business and their business alone. Back in the day there wasn't the ready access to contraception there is now but there was still infertility. Drawing conclusions based on Scriptural silence can be a dangerous game, particularly if those conclusions start to lead to expectations placed upon others. Scripture doesn't explicitly say that Jesus didn't wear a jester's hat at all times but to conclude anything about Jesus' preferred headwear from that silence is silly, and to create an expectation that others wear a jester's hat from that erroneous conclusion is even sillier.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Drawing from some of your other conclusions, God forced people into sinfulness. If he said "be fruitful and multiply" and then left someone barren and therefore unable to multiply, how are they supposed to obey his command? He might as well have send Peter and John to blame the crippled man at the Beautiful Gate for not getting up and walking.
 

Bluezone777

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
222
Age
41
Location
SW Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It was believed that children were a blessing from God. It was only natural for every couple to seek to conceive children and be unable would imply disfavor with God which is why I believe was the reason the Samaritan woman at the well was divorced five times over as she was likely very attractive hence all the marriages and unable to bear children hence all the divorces but that's my opinion on that one. My understanding is that Jesus had to be born from Mary while she was married or otherwise she would be having a child out of wedlock. A child born out of a sinful situation would hardly fit the qualifications of the savior as it would lead people into genuine doubts about who Jesus is. Why having sex before his birth was not permitted was to fulfill scripture and prophecy regarding Jesus and to rule out that the child was Joseph's as she was married while she carried him yet did not have relations with him to after his birth.

Another theological issue I have with Mary being a perpetual virgin is that doing so would violate later scriptures Paul would write to the gentiles in Corinth about marriage such as 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 concerning marriage. This wasn't new revelation that wasn't in place at the time of Jesus' birth as it was Paul revealing the truth about upright living to a people who were not given the law and not rooted in it like the Jews were hence why it was so important for Paul to be writing all those letters to those churches to give light to a people who didn't have the law so they could walk in it.
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from
Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the
first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to
register for the census, everyone to his own city.

. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to
the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and
family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and
was with child.

By then, Mary was really showing because she was in her third trimester and the
baby was full-term. Artists often portray Jesus' mom riding a donkey, but in her
condition, it's far more likely she was transported in a wagon. Artists also typically
depict the couple traveling alone to Bethlehem, which is impressionistic rather than
realistic. They were far more likely each with their own families because at that
time, they were not yet married.

Where it says Joseph went to Bethlehem along with Mary doesn't necessarily
indicate they traveled together as a couple. Mary's family was of the house and
lineage of David too, so they were all traveling to Bethlehem for the same reason.

Luke 2:6-7 . . And it came about that while they were there, the days were
completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son.

Now, the thing is; Jesus was not only conceived out of wedlock, but he was also
born out of wedlock too because Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet married
when they traveled to Bethlehem. In point of fact, Matt 1:25 says that Joseph
avoided Mary until after her baby was born.

Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was
named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

Mary and Joseph were both instructed to give her boy the name Jesus.

Matt 1:21 . . She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus

Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give
him the name Jesus.

People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all about
everybody. So it was probably common knowledge that Joseph was marrying a girl
whose baby was, from all appearances, illegitimate; and there was no plausible way
for Joseph and Mary to prove otherwise. In point of fact, I'd not be surprised that
the rumor mill was confident the baby was Joseph's, especially seeing as how he
stood with its mother for the naming; and the community must have really been
curious why he didn't marry her sooner; which is typical for shotgun weddings.

(The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's parents were humiliated by this
business, but it's likely they were.)

Although some men's paternal feelings are easily roused by any and every child
they meet, there isn't a clue as to Joseph's feelings about Mary's infant seeing as it
wasn't his own, and I can't help but wonder if maybe Joseph was somewhat
grudging about giving it his name-- but of course reluctant or no, he did and so
Solomon became one of Jesus' many grandfathers.

Matt 1:1-16 . .The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David . . and
to David was born Solomon . . . and to Solomon . . . was born Joseph the husband
of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The identity of Jesus' biological father was suspicious; but when Joseph stood with
Mary to name her baby, from then on the lad became accepted as Joseph's boy.

Luke 2:27-28 . . When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what
the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God,
saying . . .

Luke 2:41 . . Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.

Luke 2:48 . . His mother said to Him, "Son, why have you treated us this way?
Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you."

Matt 13:55 . . Is not this the carpenter's son?

Jesus was ordained of God to inherit David's throne (Luke 1:32). Now the thing is;
David's throne has never been passed down to one of his sons via a mother; it's
always been passed down via the fathers in his line.

For another; the throne has to come down via David's son Solomon (1Kings 1:13,
and 1Chron 22:9-10). Joseph is related to Solomon (Matt 1:6 and Matt 1:16).

Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to adopt Mary's boy in order to get
the lad into Solomon's genealogy and thus qualify as a rightful heir to the throne
promised him during the angel's visit with his mother. (Luke 1:31-33)
_
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
FAQ: Can it be known for certain that Jesus' mom was biologically related to David?

A: Well; it would be easy to see were the language and grammar of the opening
remarks to Jesus' genealogy-- per Luke's gospel --not so controversial. Since that
route has been compromised, we'll have to take another.

Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a bit
ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny;
for example:

Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny; whereas David's is biological because his
seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

Well; seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left with
Mary's bloodline as the default trail of flesh to David; and if Mary, then of course
her dad too.

Now, there's a rumor going round that people's biological father is the source of
their blood. But if we keep in mind that Eve was constructed of material taken from
Adam's body, then we are assured that any child that biologically descends from
Eve's body descends from Adam's body too; whether virgin-conceived or normally
conceived makes no difference as all human flesh is Adam's flesh regardless of race
or gender; and if so, then all human blood regardless of type-- whether A, B, AB,
and O, and/or RhD --is Adam's blood regardless of race or gender.

In other words: the only kind of human blood that could possibly be in Jesus' body
was Adam's blood because there just simply isn't any other human blood to work
with.

Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.

There's also an ancient prediction in the book of Genesis that biologically relates
Jesus to Eve.

Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the
heel.

Well, if Jesus is Eve's seed, then he's certainly also Adam's; there's no getting out
of that.
_
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It was believed that children were a blessing from God. It was only natural for every couple to seek to conceive children


Perhaps...

But that is hardly proof that THEREFORE every couple has children. I know several married couples who have no children (and while I don't know, I doubt each couple has never once shared intimacies). I think it is NOT a dogmatic fact that every act of intimacy results in the birth of a child (especially one specifically mentioned in the Bible). Simply noting that NORMALLY married couples desire children is NOT dogmatic proof that Mary thus had additional children (not just Jesus).



.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Luke 2:1-5 .
_


Not one of the verses you quote say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Mary having or not having children additional to Jesus.

Not one of the verses you quote say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Mary and Joseph having or not having intercourse.

All nice verses... all true... just not supporting the theory that Mary had other children besides Jesus or that Mary had lotsa sex.



.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Serious question.... what's the point of this thread? It seems to be a bunch of random observations, strung together with no particular form of logic, ignoring any questions or challenges to the premises in favor of simply posting the next random observation that may or may not be relevant in some way.
 
Top Bottom