Sorry, I didn't realize that there was a belief that Mary's hymen was intact also. Is this a doctrine that has a sciptural basis? Of course I am aware of the specifics of virginity, sex, and childbirth. My point was that in an ancient society, if a woman didn't have her hymen intact, it was a pretty safe bet that the society of the time deemed her not to be a virgin.
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.
Does Scripture tell you Joseph was not a widower? Does it tell you he was? Neither. Then accepting the idea is not contrary to Scripture. And the belief is ancient. And it is not read into Scripture, except for those who think Scripture is everything.
Using this criteria one must give credence to any doctrine, no matter how silly it might be. The bible doesn't say Paul wasn't a homosexual, so Paul could be a homosexual. The bible doesn't say that Jesus didn't visit America, so he could have gone to America. The bible doesn't say that the earth didn't have 3 inch purple people running around in the world, so it could have.
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.
It is the Hebrew that lacks this wording. The Greek was expressing the idea that the Hebrews put forward. The original writers may not have thought that 1800 years later people would start to use their texts to deconstruct the stories that were passed down as true.
I don't know Hebrew, but I have a hard time believing that nobody knew whether you were talking about full brothers, half-brothers, cousins or anyhing else in Hebrew. Didn't JHavard have an example of the description of a cousin?
I don't believe that there is any official teaching on the subject. But there is a pious belief that Mary gave birth Jesus without any labor pains and without violating her hymen. As I said this is a belief that is not required, but not exactly discouraged either.
Using this criteria one must give credence to any doctrine, no matter how silly it might be. The bible doesn't say Paul wasn't a homosexual, so Paul could be a homosexual. The bible doesn't say that Jesus didn't visit America, so he could have gone to America. The bible doesn't say that the earth didn't have 3 inch purple people running around in the world, so it could have.
No. You don't have to give "creedence" to any crazy belief that comes down the pike. What you have to do is give them consideration. You can't just say "well, the Bible doesn't say this, so it can't be true." Sorry. You can't. If the Bible clearly says otherwise, you can dismiss things as contrary to Scripture. But if the Bible is silent, you must at least give an idea the once over.
Bottom line. The idea that Joseph was a widower is not contradicted by Scripture and is thusly plausible.
I don't know Hebrew, but I have a hard time believing that nobody knew whether you were talking about full brothers, half-brothers, cousins or anyhing else in Hebrew. Didn't JHavard have an example of the description of a cousin?
Really? You can't imagine an extended family clan with women dying in childbirth, etc. and lots of cousins around and half brothers, etc.? I can. There is a Greek passage which uses the greek word for cousin. But that doesn't mean that other books were not taking the Hebrew word "Brother" and rendering it in Greek in an overly literal way.
SD