JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Origen]

Do you have anything to say about the que I posed concerning dinah and shechem?

That has nothing to do with the OP. I have no interest in taking this thread even further off topic.

 

[pinacled]

That has nothing to do with the OP. I have no interest in taking this thread even further off topic.

I was asking a question relative to the op.

Do you have anything to say about dinah and shechem's relationship.

Was it consential or not?

Yes or no will suffice

 

[Josiah]

What is binding is "part" of the Whole.

Nope. There is no mandate that says those engaged MUST consummate things and be married (in our sense). That often was the case (as it still is) but not necessarily and there is no mandate. One CANNOT insist that because a couple is engaged and not having marital relations ERGO they must get married and have such relations.


The Bible is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph EVER got married (in our sense). If you could find the verse that states, "They got married and consummated that" then you would have quoted that verse. It doesn't exist. The Bible is entirely, wholly, completely SILENT on that. The Bible seems to indicate they had divine permission to do so but it never remotely says they did.

But tradition (the same that determined what is and is not the Bible) has spoken on this - but not in a unified way. EASTERN TRADITION says they never married, only shared a home (but not a bed). The WESTERN TRADITION is that they married IN A SENSE but without consummation. Never was an issue since it's essentially the same. This is ancient tradition (like the one that you accept about the Bible) but the Bible is SILENT on this question (as it is on what is the content of itself).


The Bible is also SILENT on whether Mary had any other children. Tradition is not, however. There is very ancient, historic, unified, ecumenical tradition going back at least to 110 AD that she did not. This firm in both Eastern and Western Tradition. A stronger one that what is and is not the Bible. But two centuries ago, those same radical liberals who thought Christianity is mostly myth assumed that since Mary "obviously" had lots of sex, ergo she had lots of kids (they provided no biological evidence for this leap... and could not have cared less what they Bible says because the Bible is just myth). Today, some "Evangelicals" perpetuate their claim.





.

 

[Origen]

I was asking a question relative to the op.

Do you have anything to say about dinah and shechem's relationship.

Was it consential or not?

Yes or no will suffice

Not interested

 

[Origen]

There is very ancient, historic, unified, ecumenical tradition going back at least to 110 AD that she did not.

Please, what is the name of the source that dates back to A.D. 110?

 

[Josiah]

Please, what is the name of source that dates back to A.D. 110?

The Gospel of James (often now called "The Protoevangelum of James"). Some date it to 110 (earliest), some to "before 200" (latest). It indicates that Mary remained a virgin all her life and notes that Joseph had other children by an earlier marriage. While this document was quoted often by the Church Fathers, Tradition ultimately did not regard it as SCRIPTURE but it certainly does reveal what very early Christians believed; it indicates early tradition in this regard... and the reality that it was quoted SO often by SO many indicates what it said was embraced, even if the book itself ultimately did not make into the canon.

As our friend has proven, the Bible is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph ever married (the Gospel of James implies they did but the canonical material is silent).... and the Bible is SILENT on whether Mary had other children (although the Gospel of James states she did not).




.

 

[pinacled]

Nope. There is no mandate that says those engaged MUST consummate things and be married (in our sense). That often was the case (as it still is) but not necessarily and there is no mandate. One CANNOT insist that because a couple is engaged and not having marital relations ERGO they must get married and have such relations.


The Bible is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph EVER got married (in our sense). If you could find the verse that states, "They got married and consummated that" then you would have quoted that verse. It doesn't exist. The Bible is entirely, wholly, completely SILENT on that. The Bible seems to indicate they had divine permission to do so but it never remotely says they did.

But tradition (the same that determined what is and is not the Bible) has spoken on this - but not in a unified way. EASTERN TRADITION says they never married, only shared a home (but not a bed). The WESTERN TRADITION is that they married IN A SENSE but without consummation. Never was an issue since it's essentially the same. This is ancient tradition (like the one that you accept about the Bible) but the Bible is SILENT on this question (as it is on what is the content of itself).


The Bible is also SILENT on whether Mary had any other children. Tradition is not, however. There is very ancient, historic, unified, ecumenical tradition going back at least to 110 AD that she did not. This firm in both Eastern and Western Tradition. A stronger one that what is and is not the Bible. But two centuries ago, those same radical liberals who thought Christianity is mostly myth assumed that since Mary "obviously" had lots of sex, ergo she had lots of kids (they provided no biological evidence for this leap... and could not have cared less what they Bible says because the Bible is just myth). Today, some "Evangelicals" perpetuate their claim.





.

When you persist to repeat yourself instead of conversing shows a lack in manners.
The holy writ is quite adamant about what is binding in mariage.

So I'll ask once again about shechem and dinah's relationship.


Was it consential or not?
Yes or No will suffice.

 

[Origen]

The Gospel of James (often now called "The Protoevangelum of James"). Some date it to 110 (earliest), some to "before 200" (latest).

That is a very optimistic date to say the least (i.e. 110). The scholarly consensus does not really support that date. A more reasonable date is the mid-second century.

Nevertheless, I find no reason to follow a pseudepigrapha document when it comes to doctrine. But to each his own.

 

[Josiah]

The holy writ is quite adamant about what is binding in mariage.

Holy writ is SILENT as to whether Mary and Joseph ever married. If that is not true, we all realize you would have quoted the verse that says they married.

Holy write says NOTHING that everyone engaged is legal bound to have a consummated marriage.

So I'll ask once again about shechem and dinah's relationship.

Where does that state that Mary had other children? That's the subject of this thread. It's absolutely irrelevant whether Sheckem or Dinah had other children since neither of them was Mary.


It doesn't matter if the relationship of shechem and dinah was "consensual" or not since neither of them was Joseph or Mary... and neither is remotely suggested to be a child of Mary and having a "consensual" relationship does not mandate that ERGO a woman has children.

Derailing a thread and persistent attempts to change the subject is sometimes a rule violation (not here) and sometimes just considered unproductive and evidence of a lack of argument.





Where is the verse that states that Mary and Joseph had a consummated marriage?

Where is the verse that states that Mary had other children?

Obviously, you don't care about tradition (and that's fine). You don't care that you are going against solid, ecumenical tradition of some 1800 years and instead repeating the claims of a few radical liberals beginning about 200 years ago (and that's fine). But since you have yet to quote the Scriptures that state what you do.... and instead want to switch the conversation to entirely different issues... I have a hunch you just don't have anything to support this new liberal opinion. Just what you personally feel is "IMPLIED" by an ENGLISH word in your translation - aware that no one spoke English in the First Century and doctrine is not based on English words in English translations.



I stand by my position: Based on the original koine Greek, we simply cannot know if Mary and Joseph ever had a consummated marriage... and cannot know if Mary had other children. The canonical Scriptures are silent on both issues, English words in English translations may perhaps IMPLY something to modern English readers but the text says no such thing. What we DO have is 1800 years of solid, ancient, ecumenical TRADITION (unchallenged until a few radical liberals 200 years ago who held the Bible is often false and Christianity is full of mythology). That doesn't make it dogma, but it's something (the same something that tells you that the Bible is the Bible), something your position entirely lacks.




A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


Josiah




.








.

.

 

[Josiah]

That is a very optimistic date to say the least. The scholarly consensus does not really support that date. A more reasonable date is the mid-second century.

Nevertheless, I find no reason to follow a pseudepigrapha document when it comes to doctrine. But to each his own.

"Mid-Second Century" is EXACTLY what I said. The earliest suggested date is 110 (early Second Century) and the latest is "before 200" ( late Second Century).

I didn't say this was a canonical book. And I'm not the one saying anything in this regard should be "DOGMA." I'm saying Scripture doesn't state so we have no basis for doctrine on this . I'm noting Scripture does not state that Mary had other children (and if there was a verse that stated that, I suspect someone in 2000 years would have found it), and that early tradition was that she did not. Everything before 311 is generally considered early church tradition, so "mid second century" would be early church tradition.




.

 

[Origen]

"Mid-Second Century" is EXACTLY what I said. The earliest suggested date is 110 (early Second Century) and the latest is "before 200" would would be late Second Century).

You said and I quote: "Some date it to 110 (earliest), some to "before 200" (latest)." You said nothing about "Mid-Second Century" date in post 246.

I didn't say this was a canonical book.

I never said you did.

And I'm not the one saying anything in this regard should be "DOGMA."

Again, I never said you did. I merely pointed out I find no reason to follow a pseudepigrapha document when it comes to doctrine.

 

[pinacled]

Holy writ is SILENT as to whether Mary and Joseph ever married. If that is not true, we all realize you would have quoted the verse that says they married.

Holy write says NOTHING that everyone engaged is legal bound to have a consummated marriage.





Where does that state that Mary had other children? That's the subject of this thread. It's absolutely irrelevant whether Sheckem or Dinah had other children since neither of them was Mary.


It doesn't matter if their relationship was "consensual" or not since neither of them was Joseph or Mary... and neither is remotely suggested to be a child of Mary.


Where is the verse that states that Mary and Joseph had a consummated marriage?

Where is the verse that states that Mary had other children?




.

.

The op only states that jesus had brothers.
Nothing about their mother far as I recall.

And since you refuse an inclination of respectful decorum.
I will have to suppose that you would call jesus a liar concerning marriage being defined as, " one flesh.

Blessings Always

 

[Josiah]

You said and I quote: "Some date it to 110 (earliest), some to "before 200" (latest)." You said nothing about "Mid-Second Century" date in post 246.

HELLO..... again, as you note, I said the book dated from 110 at the earliest (that's EARLY SECOND CENTURY) to "before 200" (that's LATE SECOND CENTURY). Tell me how I then insisted it not "MID-SECOND CENTURY? You claim simply fits exactly where I claimed.

Yup, it's reflective of early Christian Tradition. You asked for one source, I gave it to you. You agreed with my dating. You know this makes it early.


Now, the point is being made that Mary had other children. The proponents cannot (and thus do not) argue that Tradition supports this....

I

I find no reason to follow a pseudepigrapha document when it comes to doctrine.

You seem to have the participants in this discussion confused;. I'M the one saying we can't say with certainty... that there is no basis for doctrine here.

I never remotely supported that Mary did or did not have other children - as de fide dogma, as dogma, as doctrine, as binding teaching or even as pious opinion. MY position is the Bible does not say ( and I don't know why it matters anyway. Perhaps you have me confused with another participant saying that Mary DID have other children. Tradition - ancient, ecumenical Tradition - says, but not Scripture.

And I never remotely supported that Mary and Joseph ever did or did not consummate anything. I noted the Bible doesn't say. Tradition - ancient, ecumenical Tradition - says but not Scripture.

There are those in this thread insisting on Mary these issues, they just know, but I'm not one of them. I'm posting in counterpoint to that.





.

 

[Origen]

HELLO..... again, as you note, I said the book dated from 110 at the earliest (that's EARLY SECOND CENTURY) to "before 200" (that's LATE SECOND CENTURY). Tell me how I then insisted it not "MId

I just did. You never said "mid." You gave the date 110 and used the words "before 200." That means mean it could have been written, according to you, anytime between 110 and 199. That is not mid-century. A mid-century would be ca. 150 not sometime between 110 and 199.

 

[Josiah]

I will have to suppose that you would call jesus a liar concerning marriage being defined as, " one flesh.

Absurd.

I did not call Jesus a liar. And I didn't say that marriage in the full sense is not "one flesh." I asked for where the Bible says Mary and Joseph married, that they had a consummated marriage? You won't give that verse, I suspect we all know why.

Just because Jesus said that marriage makes "one flesh" does not prove that Mary and Joseph ever married, ever consummated everything, it doesn't prove that Mary and Joseph were "one flesh."

And again, you can produce NOTHING from Scripture that says everyone engaged MUST - BY DIVINE MANDATE - consummate that relationship and become "one flesh." I suspect often engaged people did (eventually) consummate that relationship but you cannot prove that ALWAYS to be the case and obviously you cannot prove that Divine Law mandates that.

You don't have any verse that says Mary and Joseph consummated anything, that they were married in that sense.

You don't have a thing that says Mary had other children



.



.

 

[pinacled]

Part. But it doesn't necessarily lead to marriage in our sense. Then or now. There is no legal mandate in Scripture that those engaged therefore MUST have a consummated marriage.


NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married.






There's no legal mandate that it be completed.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married. Western Tradition says they did (albeit never consummated), Eastern Tradition says they did not (albeit shared the same home) but the Bible is SILENT on the question. Maybe it just doesn't matter.... it's never been doctrine.






... the Bible is SILENT. It never states that Mary had other children. And remember, the word "brother" in koine Greek is very, very broad, MOST of the time it did not indicate sharing the same biological parents, much less the same biological mother. You and I are brothers.

Ancient, universal, ecumenical Tradition (the same that determine what is and is not the Bible) says that Mary had no other children. This was universally upheld by all Christians until about 200 years ago when some radical liberals declared the Bible to be often wrong, the Virgin Birth is myth and that Mary "obviously" had lots of sex and so these folks mentioned in the Bible are children of Mary. Today, a few "Evangelical" Christians (who think of themselves as conservative, Bible-believing Christians) continue the liberal opinion that Mary and Joseph had lots of sex and Mary lots of children.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

[ "NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married. "]

In response to your bracketed statement.
Why then are they called husband and wife?

 

[Josiah]

Why then are they called husband and wife?

Those engaged BUT NOT YET CONSUMMATED... were often called "husband and wife." To insist - as you are want to do - that if these terms are used, they MUST have consummated their marriage is simply more following the path of those radical liberals some 200 years ago that invented your theory, it would mean Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus. You are denying the Virgin Birth.


You are noting Matthew 1:18 and 19. See also 25. Note, this is BEFORE the birth of Jesus. But Mary is stated to be a VIRGIN, so it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE for Mary and Joseph to have a consummated marriage and Mary to be a virgin. YES, they are referred to as BOTH engaged AND as "husband and wife" but obviously (if the Bible is being truthful) they are NOT husband and wife in the full sense of "one flesh" and a consummated marriage unless - like the liberals you parrot - you believe Scripture is untrue and insist the Virgin Birth is a myth. They are called "husband and wife" where there is NO consummation, NO marriage (in that "one flesh" complete sense). The terms simply had a more broad meaning that you insist (and thus have to deny the Virgin Birth and Matthew 1:25) "Husband" and "wife" did NOT mean marriage in the full sense, it did NOT mean they were "one flesh" and consummated.

Yes, they are called "husband" and "wife" BEFORE the birth of Jesus, but they could not have had a consummated "one flesh" marriage IF the Bible is correct - that Mary was a VIRGIN and they did not have relations (ie, NO consummation).


The terms used in your English translation simply don't carry the implication you demand... not unless those liberals were correct and the Virgin Birth is a lie. You can't have Mary and Joseph MARRIED in the full sense of consummated "one flesh" AND have her a virgin.... you can't have that true AND accept that Joseph did NOT havis e relations with her. YET, they are called "husband" and "wife." Obviously, your assuming and implying are wrong (or the Bible is). Those terms did not mean what they USUALLY do today.







.


.

 

[pinacled]

Those engaged BUT NOT YET CONSUMMATED... were often called "husband and wife." To insist - as you are want to do - that if these terms are used, they MUST have consummated their marriage is simply more following the path of those radical liberals some 200 years ago that invented your theory, it would mean Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus. You are denying the Virgin Birth.


You are noting Matthew 1:18 and 19. See also 25. Note, this is BEFORE the birth of Jesus. But Mary is stated to be a VIRGIN, so it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE for Mary and Joseph to have a consummated marriage and Mary to be a virgin. YES, they are referred to as BOTH engaged AND as "husband and wife" but obviously (if the Bible is being truthful) they are NOT husband and wife in the full sense of "one flesh" and a consummated marriage unless - like the liberals you parrot - you believe Scripture is untrue and insist the Virgin Birth is a myth. They are called "husband and wife" where there is NO consummation, NO marriage (in that "one flesh" complete sense). The terms simply had a more broad meaning that you insist (and thus have to deny the Virgin Birth and Matthew 1:25) "Husband" and "wife" did NOT mean marriage in the full sense, it did NOT mean they were "one flesh" and consummated.

Yes, they are called "husband" and "wife" BEFORE the birth of Jesus, but they could not have had a consummated "one flesh" marriage IF the Bible is correct - that Mary was a VIRGIN and they did not have relations (ie, NO consummation).


The terms used in your English translation simply don't carry the implication you demand... not unless those liberals were correct and the Virgin Birth is a lie. You can't have Mary and Joseph MARRIED in the full sense of consummated "one flesh" AND have her a virgin.... you can't have that true AND accept that Joseph did NOT havis e relations with her. YET, they are called "husband" and "wife." Obviously, your assuming and implying are wrong (or the Bible is). Those terms did not mean what they USUALLY do today.







.


.

Incorrect.
They're not called husband and wife until a later time after Yeshua was born.

Hebrew 13
[4 Marriage is honorable in every respect; and, in particular, sex(consummation) within marriage is pure. But God will indeed punish fornicators and adulterers.]

Blessings Always

 

[Josiah]

Incorrect.
They're not called husband and wife until a later time after Yeshua was born.

Wrong.

Read post 257

They are called "husband" and "wife" in Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20 and Matthew 1:24.
All BEFORE Jesus was born.
All BEFORE they had had relations, BEFORE any consummation, BEFORE "one flesh"
During this time, they ALSO were called "engaged."

OBVIOUSLY, the terms "husband" and "wife" here cannot mean married in the full sense of consummated, "one flesh"
Unless the Bible is mistaken and the Virgin Birth is a myth.




.

 

[pinacled]

Wrong.

Read post 257

They are called "husband" and "wife" in Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20 and Matthew 1:24.
All BEFORE Jesus was born.
All BEFORE they had had relations, BEFORE any consummation, BEFORE "one flesh"
During this time, they ALSO were called "engaged."

OBVIOUSLY, the terms "husband" and "wife" here cannot mean married in the full sense of consummated, "one flesh"
Unless the Bible is mistaken and the Virgin Birth is a myth.

A pretense

When were Joseph and Mary considered married? | GotQuestions.org

When were Joseph and Mary considered married? Were Joseph and Mary married before Jesus was born, and if so, when?

www.gotquestions.org

Excerpt:
[Jewish custom allowed that they be considered as husband and wife, though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The point is being made that Joseph and Mary had experienced no sexual contact with each other, as verse 18 “before they came together”]