As with your great response on the question of "firstborn," I'm going to devote some time to prayer and study and speaking with some of my Orthodox mentors, and then respond more. But I'll give a few thoughts now.
Without looking up the specific words, right off hand, I would say that betrothed would be the same as our engaged, and marriage would be when it is legalized by the civil courts or a Church, so with that said, I’ll do a little researching.
This is consistent with my understanding as well.
Question #2, Do you believe that the first comes before the second, and carries the full responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of consummation, as is consistent with Jewish tradition of the time?
Yes, short of living together, and her cooking his meals and tucking him in at night. Lol
Ouch. My apologies, on second reading my question comes across as rather arrogant in tone. I seem to remember being rather worked up at the time. Thank you for not responding in kind.
Now notice Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Joseph took unto him his wife, that was phase #2, marriage, complete except for the physical consummation, with “took” being the marriage word.
Took her, as one took in marriage, Deut 24:3, and Luke 20:30
Taken her, as to take in marriage, Deut 20:7, and Gen 12:19 and 20:7
Take her as in marriage, Deut 27:7, and Deut 25:5
This conclusively proves that Joseph and Mary were legally married.
I readily admit that this appears to be a valid interpretation of the words. I won't admit that its the only valid interpretation. Let's assume for argument's sake that my interpretation is correct. If a man had a betrothed wife (as you say, the term "wife" is accurate even at the betrothal stage), and had been commanded by God to not consummate the marriage, but to in all other ways make the marriage appear "normal" for the sake of public appearances and public acceptance and protection, how would this be worded?
I also fully admit that IF this is the truth of the nature of the relationship between Mary and Joseph, there would be no Scriptural precedent. How could there be? Nowhere else in Scripture - in all of history - has God endorsed a woman bearing a child and pretending that someone else is the father. IF that is what happened here, can you think of how Scripture might have worded it? If Joseph and Mary proceeded with legal marriage for the sake of appearances, but never in practice moved past the stage of being "betrothed," isn't it very plausible that Scripture would have still used the language that is used in Matthew 1:24?
I admit to only having a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew society during the time of Christ. But I've heard it maintained on this thread that it would have been wrong for a man and woman, fully and legally married, to NOT consummate their marriage as soon as possible. Obviously, Joseph and Mary did not do this. In your interpretation of Matthew 1:24, they are legally married right after Joseph wakes from his dream of the angel. Thus, it seems to me that the term "married" cannot have included consummation. If it means marriage-with-delayed-consummation, likely an offense against social mores, why can't it just as easily mean marriage-with-permanently-delayed-consummation?
I apologize if this doesn't seem clear. I understand why, if you approach the passage expecting to reach your conclusion that they consummated the marriage, the evidence seems to be there. I'm trying to see if I'm being reasonable in saying that if you approach the passage expecting to reach my conclusion that they never consummated the marriage, the evidence seems to be there as well. I think I am.
The fact that there is no mention of small children is not the uncommon thing but the common, and would have been rare indeed if they had been mentioned.
Very fair answer. However, even though it is the common practice, it does not change the fact that the lack of any mention of them does not prove that they existed.
Question #6, And why would Christ commend Mary to the care of John from the cross if she had other children whose place it would have been to care for her on the death of her only son?</>
I’m sure you meant on the death of her oldest son rather then only son, but the reason is clear...
Actually, I meant her only son because that is what I believe to be the truth.
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! V-50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus put his money where his mouth was. He had told them that a spiritual brother was even more of a true brother then a blood brother, such as James, who wasn’t a believer at that time, but it looks as though that may have changed shortly afterwards since the apostle Paul said that Christ saw James alone 1 Cor 15:7, and this was quite possibly when James gave his life to his Lord.
Sorry, but I don't see this as "direct Scriptural evidence" at all. On what basis do you link these two passages? By your reasoning, Christ should have been just as diligent about commending all the other women among his followers to different people for caretaking - are they not, as He says in the verse you quote, His "mothers" too?
Your scenario is plausible, but no more than that. Is there any proof at all as to when James became a believer? As you say, we know he was by not long after Christ's Resurrection, but what evidence do you have for saying that he wasn't a month earlier?
As I said, your theory is plausible. But certainly no more plausible than the tradition passed down within the Orthodox Church.
Question #7, Why is the burden of proof in this discussion on those who believe that Mary remained ever-virgin, when Scripture does not state that she bore additional children?
But it does state she had additional children, when in Mt 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? V-55 And his sisters, are they not all with us? V-56
No, you are wrong. It does not state that she had additional children. It states that the people in the crowd thought of these people as the blood relations of Christ. The true nature of Christ's Father would have been kept from the neighbors. So they would have thought that Joseph was Christ's father. If these other children were Joseph's by a previous marriage, which is what the Orthodox Church teaches, the crowd would have always thought that they were Jesus's half-brothers and half-sisters. And so, they would have called them his brothers and sisters.
So my question still stands. Why does my position bear the burden of proof and yours does not?
If this is not a clear referral to the whole family of Joseph and Mary I don’t know what could be.
Easy. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? Don’t we know her other children, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" This is a clear referral. As it is written, it does not support your position any more than mine unless we come to it with our mind made up already.
And, if this wasn’t enough, it was repeated in Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
And in this passage as well, it does not say that these are the children of Mary. It says that they are believed to be the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
Some make the claim there was no Greek word for cousin
OK, let me ask a question that I absolutely don't have an answer to - is there a Greek word for half-brother different from the word for brother? Is there a Hebrew word? I've never said that the "brethern" of Jesus were cousins. I've been taught that the Church position is that they were half-brethern. There is a crucial difference. Would it have been normal for the Gospel writers, and for the crowds they quote, to refer to half-brothers as cousins? Or as brothers? Or as something else entirely? I have no idea what the answer is, and whether or not it supports your position or mine.
Here again, is the opportunity to distance himself from his so called cousins, and Matthew or the Holy Spirit could have done so easily at this time, but Christ doesn’t question the one who went to the door, the door man ID’d them as his brethern, and Christ even repeated it, a second time.
Again, they are "so-called cousins" by you, not me. I call them half-brothers, children of Joseph by a previous marriage that were "around and about" during Jesus's early years. This is what the Orthodox tradition maintains. Of course he would have felt a special kinship with them. I have two half-brothers. I do not think of them as anything but my brothers, but that does not change the fact that they were not born of the same woman as I am.
He was demonstrating a closeness of a blood brother, a mother and sisters.
Sorry, same answer. I see nothing in Scripture to conclusively support your proposition, or even to make your proposition any more reasonable than mine. If these "brethern" were indeed Joseph's by an earlier marriage, as the Orthodox Church has taught for so many centuries, they would have been the "older siblings" that the young Jesus looked up to and learned from as a child. Of course there would have been a special bond between them, even if there was no blood connection.
I see no proof of your claims what so ever, not one.
And as I've tried to make clear, I see no proof of yours either. The question remains, if neither of us presents proof, why am I definitively wrong and you’re definitively right?
When I do a long research on a subject...
Your diligence shows in this post, and it is appreciated.
When all the research and debating is done, there is one thing to remember, there is one truth on the matter, and only one, either Mary remained childless after Jesus, or she didn’t, there is no compromising on the truth.
I agree completely. And I have yet to see any proof from the only source you recognize, the Scripture itself, that contradicts the interpretation I've been taught. The Orthodox teaching still seems to be in full compliance with the Scripture. Please let me know if you think I'm being completely unreasonable. Obviously, I don't believe I am.
Unless you can show more scripture to support your belief, then I have to support what I see as the truth, then you have no leg to stand on. Every statement must be disproved before you have a case.
I agree that you believe you have evidence to support "what I see as the truth." I do not think this evidence is compelling. It is your belief, not mine, that the only authoritative source for teachings is the Scripture itself. I readily admit that my belief comes from the Orthodox tradition and not from the Scripture. But, as I've tried to show, the relevant passages in Scripture do not conflict one whit with this teaching. Nor do they conflict with your belief. Coming full circle, this is why I asked to begin with why don't NC's and RC's/Orthodox call a truce on the matter. I’m not trying to convince you to adopt my position. I’m trying to demonstrate that I, and the RC’s and Orthodox in general, are not being at all unreasonable or irrational or Scripture-denying in maintaining our tradition.
I came to religion with practically no belief at all on any kind of doctrine, so I approach almost everything from this viewpoint.
When we read that Mary and Joseph were married and that Jesus had brothers and sisters, then the natural conclusion that anyone would make is that of course after the birth of Jesus they carried on as any married couple would.
To believe anything else requires believing things that are not apparent in scripture:
1. That Mary was always a virgin. Not to be indelicate, but the birth of Jesus would have shattered the physical sign of any virginity. I too have only a rudimentary grasp of Jewish society, but as I understand physical signs of viriginity in all cultures has always been the acid test of whether someone was virginal or not. Her physical purity would be the only outward sign to others that she actually had conceived and bore as a virgin. Once that was gone, through childbirth, then there would be no physical evidence that she was and thus no reason why they wouldn't have sex.
2. That Joseph was married before and had kids from a previous marriage. Again, in order to support the idea of perpetual virginity, an entire family history of Joseph that exists nowhere but in a belief has to be read into scripture.
3. That greek lacks a way to express "half-brother" or "cousin" and that the original writers of scripture were not expressing themselves exactly as they wanted.
These are the biggies. The only thing that gives me any pause is that Jesus turned over care to John instead of his brother. I don't doubt that this was rare in Jewish society, but I doubt that it was unheard of. From scripture, it's obvious that John and Jesus had a very close relationship, John refers to himself as "the disciple that Jesus loved" in John 21:7. Jesus also chose John to reveal the vision of end time prophecies to. The very act of turning over the care of Mary to him speaks volumes of their closeness.
WS, thank you for your sincere and thoughtful response to my post, and the tactful way you compliment first, than critique afterwords, which is exactly what I just did. Hahahaha
I have attempted to answer this several times, and I can’t seem to avoid it sounding sarcastic and derisive, which I don’t intend to do, so instead, I will learn from you, and simply ask you some hopefully thought provoking questions.
Do you find even the remotest suggestion in scripture that Joseph had been married prior to Mary
The RC’s call Mary a spotless vessel, and while this is not a biblical term, you may feel it is true, if so, how do you account for the fact that God chose a man for Mary who had been married and had at least 6 other children to another woman, do you believe God would give Mary anything but a spotless man for her mate?
If Joseph had already brought 6 children into the marriage, had you considered how old they would have been.
Would Christ not then be the youngest of the 7?
Would you agree that the youngest child would have been a minimum of 3 years older then Jesus?
Would you agree that James would have had to be at least 8 to 10 years older then Jesus?
When the family followed Mary around the country side, she was their mother in law, and only a few years older then James?
When they all came to see Jesus in Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.am I to believe that all his family was still following Mary around, and they ranged in ages from 33, to their 40’s?
If Joseph had James 15 years prior to Mary, James could have been the same age as his mother in law?
If Jesus was the youngest child, and not the eldest, he held no responsibility for Mary’s welfare when he died, so he simply took it upon himself to tell John to take her in, because according to Jewish law, it was not his to give, and it would have gone to James.
Why do you suppose the genealogy failed to list Joseph’s previous wife and children?
Mt 1: 6. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
I am going to stop here, because I could no doubt go on forever on these absurd hypothetical questions if this line of reasoning is followed to it's natural end, but first let me get your thinking so far on this. (^g^) JH