Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Oh, sorry, I couldn't tell from here.
Regards
That argument makes no sense, given the background of the Apostles - THEY CIRCUMCISED INFANTS! They themselves were circumcised as infants. Christ was circumcised as an infant. And Paul clearly parallels circumcision and baptism - that circumcision was a shadow of the good things to come. They served similar purposes - to induct people into the Church, the People of God. Thus, it is a very small step to include infants as being able to be baptized. Anyway, God gives faith, correct? Are you saying that one must have "x" amount of faith (from God) to become baptized? What exactly are you saying when you claim that ONLY believers can be baptized? Does one have to earn baptism? Is it a work of man?
Now, now, you know as well as I that sin is also in thought, which none of the Apostles could have known as regards Mary. One example of Mary's sin that I have heard of was at the wedding in Cana. Frankly, I'd be willing to let that one slide. Objectively, I honestly don't see enough evidence. However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse? If it is, then how does Mary get out of the scene when she went to the tomb to anoint the body? She didn't bring the spices because she expected a risen Lord, EXACTLY when He said He would rise. The angel's question confirms this.
That Mary was without sin is "fitting", given the Divine Being she carried in her womb. We see Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, as she, like the original Ark, carried the Bread of Life, the High Priest, the Law. Jesus Christ went beyond the mere symbols in the original ark. And the Ark was made of pure gold, purified. We take this symbolism all the way. We also understand that Mary is the New Eve, who ALSO was born sinless. Thus, the development of Mary as being pure. The Apostles must have seen her apparent sinlessness, and Scriptures point to the "fittingness" of Mary being sinless - JUST like we presume that Jesus also didn't have a sinful thought, even though Paul or the Apostles couldn't have known either person's mind or thoughts.
I don't see any sin from Mary's actions at Cana. You need to look beyond the literal in John's Gospel, brother. It goes much deeper, pointing to the woman at the foot of the cross and the woman in the Garden of Eden.
However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse?
There is a difference between disbelief and doubt. One can have many doubts pass through their minds and still believe.
May I assume that you ignore this verse in defending your position that the only legitimate Sabbath is on a Saturday? (I assume that because you said that we don't pick and choose which day to worship God.) I didn't even know that Catholics don't worship on Sundays!
We worship on Sundays since the time of the Apostles to celebrate the NEW CREATION - the Resurrection.
Regards
"Well, he couldn't have been all the way over the hill, because IIRC, in the Protoevangelium it says that Joseph was accused by others of fathering the child, once Mary was discovered to have been pregnant."
Men have fathered children when they are very elderly. It just doesn't happen very often. The criticism leveled at Joseph was, as I recall, a "tut tut" for not preserving Mary's virginity as had been assumed would be the case. The idea that old men usually can do without it is still true today, as is the reality that many continue on until they are very old. There's nothing here of particular interest.
"Given this premise, I'd say it sounds logical. But what gets me is: why get married? I can't believe it would send shock waves through the community if "young virgin niece" wants to go live with and take care of "doddering old uncle". That kind of thing must have happened all the time. Joseph even complained that he would be seen as a laughing stock at taking Mary as his wife. Then, the priest immediately used extortion to get Joseph to agree. I'm still chuckling about that one. :)"
First of all, do not assume that every part of the Protoevangelion is true. It is not Scripture, nor is this tradition. In the case of traditions like this, we feel very confident in the basic account, but we don't read into small details of the tradition with the confidence that we can with Scripture. I do not know a lot about Near Eastern culture. I just understand that it was expected for women to marry, and keep in mind that one could marry a distant relative, which Joseph was. To cohabit with someone you could marry probably would have been a scandal. It also would give her certain legal protections and status under Jewish law that would be absent if she were in the odd state of "never married."
"I remember the Protoevangelium noting this too. It just struck me as odd, (and I don't question the fact of the tradition), that since virginity was held up as such a prized state, that once young girls became "eligible", they were promptly kicked out of the safest place on earth to maintain that state! :) Go figure."
You don't know your Old Testament very well if you aren't familiar with the strictness with which the Jewish tradition considered "the cycle" to be a time when a woman was ritually unclean.
BTW, this is still adhered to in many parts of the Orthodox world. Women don't enter the church during that time of the month and certainly don't commune. It is partly a residual of Hebrew tradition, and partly a kindness to the women, who usually aren't feeling all that great.
First of all, it seems you all believe that Mary just couldn't of had sex because that would of made her somehow sinful.
Catholics don't believe that marriage or sexual intercourse within marriage is sinful. There are plenty of writings from post-Vatican 2 that express this. Pope John Paul 2 was very adamant about this. We don't see Mary as having sex with Joseph because the early Church didn't believe it. It has nothing to do with sex being "sinful"! Scripture is silent on the issue.
Again, we are not discussing anything about "knowing" someone, but the term "till". It does NOT mean anything about the future. It only discounts sexual activity up to that point. You presume that because a 20th century marriage must include sex, you think that Mary and Joseph had sex. The Scriptures do not make that claim.
Your logic is again faulty. You think that because marriage normally includes sex, and that the Bible talks about sex so much, then Mary and Joseph must have had sex. You are forgetting that with Jesus, we see a new manner of God's actions. First of all, before Christ, EVERY person was born to a man and a woman. Was this the case with Christ? Thus, you logic fails on this issue. When we are speaking about Christ and Christ's mother, we have entered a new way of God's action among men.
Especially when the tradition is at COMPLETE ODDS with God himself!
WOW! "Full Court's interpretation" = the "Word of God"! I never would have guessed it. What arrogance and pride!
Through belief and faith in Christ alone, you can be free of the bondage of a false belief, one that denies the complete power of Christ, and gives his intecessory powers to a mere human being.
Bondage? It is a GREAT comfort to know that other people are praying for me - IN HEAVEN - to include Christ's Mother, Mary. I think it is wonderful that God has allowed His Creation to partake in His Divine Nature and allows men to love other men and pray for them (or woman). We don't stand before God as a disconnected individual. We stand before God as a community of people. This is quite clear from Scriptures. Unfortunately, you are in bondage by stripping the Community from Christianity.
Ma'am, I think you need to broaden your narrow view of Christianity.
Regards
Interesting point; the priest telling Joseph that if he doesn't take the pregant Mary as his wife, the ground will swallow him up like Koran. I've always pictured Joseph as being a "righteous man" and wanted to do what was right.
Joseph knew the law yet he was torn between doing the "right" thing in sending Mary away and doing the "lawful" thing which would be to report her which would possibly result in her stoning. It appears that Joseph didn't even contemplate doing the "best" thing in marrying her.* The scriptures state Joseph made the decision to send her away. It was only after Joseph made this decision that an angel of God interceded and told Joseph not to worry about taking Mary as his wife.
I'm not sure where all these threats and everything else pops up. It says that Joseph was obedient to the angel's instructions.
*I'll footnote this since it seems to me that under Jewish law, once you were engaged you were consider married-just not consummated until the wedding night. If a person wanted to break the vowels before the consummation process, it required a certificate of divorce. Thus Joseph had to "put her away quietly". Joseph couldn't just call off the engagement. I don't have my reference books but if anyone can shed light on this I would appreciate any corrections or updates.
Again and again, you are begging the question. You PRESUME that God put the Bible together because the Bible is from God - according to you. You have a finished product that you claim is from God. You provide no evidence to prove that - you beg the question. Considering that Esther does not tell us it is Scripture, reading it in isolation does not tell us it is Scriputre. We rely on the decisions of the Community of Faith that Esther represents the "mind" of the Church - which is guided by the Spirit. But having the book in hand does not prove a lick. What makes Esther Scripture, while the book of Wisdom is not, according to Protestants? Or the Epistle of Barnabas? And so forth. It is a circular argument to say "the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE the Word of God is the Bible". You won't convince any thinking person using this logic.
Then God certainly owes those gentlemen a debt of gratitude, seeing as how God could not inspire a Holy work that was self evident.
LOL! The Bible's individual books are NOT "self-evident"! That is quite ridiculous in many of the OT books! Even some of the NT books do not bear the "stamp" of a divinely written book. Philemon? Jude? 3 John? YOU could pick them out from a pile of scrolls without any knowledge of them previously, and decide they were Scriptures? Please. Give me a break. Without the community led by the Spirit, you wouldn't have a clue on what was Scriptures...
God tells us that to the non-elect, the truths of scripture are nonsense. It is apparent that many of the Jews that are related in the NT during the time of Christ did not have real faith, but also that many Jews did accept Christ.
Can you point those verses out for me? Where does the Bible say the non-elect believe the Scriptures are nonsense? It is readily apparent that Jesus of Nazareth's death did not fit the "Scriptural" view held by the Jews on who the Messiah would be. The Scriptures themselves tell us that a man hung from a tree is condemned by God. It is ONLY Apostolic Tradition that explains Deuteronomy from a different perspective. From the bible alone, Jews will not come to the faith.
And I was already concerned over your apparent worship of dead men and one particular woman. :)
LOL! Asking for someone to pray for me is worship? I guess you must worship living Christians, then!
Regards
A "VOWEL"??? Where's Vanna White???
It's nonsense to say that the church fathers picked out 66 books and said, "Well, I think that's a nice round number." The fathers had strict guidelines for determining whether a document was inspired or not. It wasn't built on some whim and approved by the group as you seem to think. The Church in its early years recognized the difference from inspired and uninspired writings. Otherwise, how did the Church tell the difference?
I think FK has more support for his views and the traditions of the Church.
For obvious reasons, none of the traditions of the Church deal with the genetics or embryology of what happened at the time of the Annunciation.
The terminology of the Church has been to say that he took flesh from the Virgin. His flesh was not created "de novo" and inserted into her womb, and she wasn't just some kind of "surrogate mother." She was Christ's mother in the flesh.
As to how this exactly took place from the point of view of modern biology, it is probably best not to pry and speculate, just as we Orthodox do not speculate on what happens with the bread and wine at the Divine Liturgy. We know that it is bread and wine, and that by the time we receive it, it is *also* the Body and Blood of Christ -- how this can be is a Mystery beyond our comprehension, thus our usual terminology is to say that we "receive the Holy Mysteries" when we commune.
We do not feel the need to explain everything, nor do we think that we have permission from God to explore beyond the bounds of what he has revealed to us.
Such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura? We don't find those in Scripture, but they are the pillars of Protestantism. We BOTH rely on a particular concept, a paradigm, of what the Scriptures say. We admit this and call it "Apostolic Tradition". The Scriptures are read in a certain way. Coupled with the writings of the first Christians, we piece together what they believed and what they practiced, realizing that it was based on the Apostolic teachings given, both orally and written. Protestants, on the other hand, think that the Bible needs no outside authority - that the Bible can interpret itself. This is ludicrous.
Are we to believe that the US Government is wiser than God? The US Constitution is the basis of our Government, a document. This document can be widely interpreted to mean a variety of things on many issues. Thus, fortunately for the unity of our nation, the Founding Fathers came up with a Supreme Court, which would give authoritative judgments on interpretations of this Constitution. Without the Courts, people would pick and choose what the Constitution says and there would be no real unity and sense to the original meaning of the Constitution. What shape would our country be if people decided independently to judge what the Constitution says for the running of our Government or society in general? And that is exactly the mess we are in regarding Protestantism and Christianity.
Purgatory, the Mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, immaculate conception are all based on extra Biblical sources, or your "oral tradition".
Some of these things are not dogmatic teachings. The rest are our understanding of what Scriptures and the Apostles taught. Much of this is witnessed to in the first Christians' writings. The Sacrifice of the Mass is discussed in the Didache, written about the time of John's Gospel. Christians were certainly practicing the Real Presence of Christ. These practices are found in the Bible, although not as clearly as we would like to see. But should we expect more clarity? Not necessarily, because the Bible is NOT a Catechism, but a compilation of letters put together ad hoc. The Church itself is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the Bible. The Bible is one source that the Church uses, but certainly not the only one, in determining Christian practice. We realize that dogma develops - our understanding of the Scriptures and Apostolic teachings comes to a more clear understanding over time.
If oral traditions and written words are equivalent once those oral teachings from the Apostles were written down isn't it much more reliable to stand with the written word? Also, the Apostles who were the only ones granted supernatural power are all gone so we can no longer receive these oral teachings directly from them.
Yes, oral teachings that are written down are more reliable. When we discuss "oral teachings", we don't mean that these teachings STILL are "oral"! For example, infant baptism is an example of an orally given Tradition of the Apostles. It is not EXPLICIT in the Bible, nor is it DENIED. Scripture is silent on the issue. However, in the writings of early Christians, we find the basis for infant baptism and the claim that it was an "ancient teaching of the Apostles". Thus, when we discover an orally given teaching of the Apostles not found explicitly in the Bible - perhaps only implicitly so - it holds the same force as the written Scriptures in that BOTH have the same source - GOD.
We don't receive teachings directly from the Apostles, but it is passed down by the men appointed to be successors BY the Apostles, men such as Timothy and Titus. We believe that the Holy Spirit will continue to guard against error, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. This is not meant only for 50 AD, but for all time, as God's presence will continue to guide His Body.
Regards
LOL! WHY would they "pick out" 66 of anything? Don't you realize the connotation of that number??? I didn't say that the Church decided to pick out only 73 books for a particular symbolic reason - although 73 would certainly make more sense, if THIS was the ONLY determinant.
The fathers had strict guidelines for determining whether a document was inspired or not.
And what guidelines were those? I'll tell you... Those books that were written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle AND was in the mold of an ORTHODOX teaching. In other words, the Bishops ALREADY were taught orthodox teachings, had in mind what WAS orthodox, and tossed out any book that didn't fit their ideas of orthodoxy.
The Church in its early years recognized the difference from inspired and uninspired writings. Otherwise, how did the Church tell the difference?
That's exactly what I have said all along.
i think FK has more support for his views and the traditions of the Church.
I know it would be against your religion to agree with a Catholic against another Protestant! But FK's argument is a circular one - the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE the Word of God is the Bible. It makes no logical sense, and you don't appear to be arguing for this circular arguement. I believe you and I agree, although you may not like to admit this. The Bible was put together by men who already HAD the "Word" preached to them and recognized it when they saw it in the various writings presented to them when the Canon became a necessity. Have I ever said anything different? A whim? Please.
Regards
Yep, I guess birth-giver is out and mother is back in. ,p.{^_^}
"Now THAT is an excellent question. The timing element does seem to be all wrong, doesn't it?"
As I have commented before, the Scriptures give evidence that God preserves people in some way for special purposes. With Elijah, the Scripture is clear that he did not die, but was taken up into heaven -- whoever said that Elijah was in Hades has to contradict Scripture. We have the same phenomenon with Enoch. Orthodox tradition is that the two witnesses at the end of time, spoken of in the Apocalypse, will be Elijah and Enoch. They *then* will die, being martyred in the streets of Jerusalem.
Moses also was special. He died, and God did not allow anyone to be with him at his death or to bury him. Scripture says that God buried him. Then, in Jude, we have the account of St. Michael and Satan disputing over the body of Moses. Why dispute over a dead body? The implication to me is that God was going to resurrect him and take him to heaven, although I'm not sure that this is spelled out in Tradition.
(An aside: There is an apocryphal work called the Assumption of Moses -- I've not read it and I'm not sure it is translated or even still extant -- that some have said Jude is referring to. As with the Protoevangelion, I would be careful about going to that work, if you can find it, and saying that this work in its entirety reflects Orthodox tradition. There is a common source in Holy Tradition, but we cannot hang on the reliability of every passage of these written accounts the way we can with Scripture. If we could, they would *be* Scripture.)
Regardless, with Moses' death, something unusual was in the offing. Another possibility is that at the Transfiguration, Christ appeared out of time, and that Moses and Elijah were seen mystically in their post-resurrectional state. Again, this is me, not anything that I have read patristically.
The bottom line is that I don't think that it is accidental that the Scriptures just happen to have accounts of unusual circumstances surrounding the end of the earthly lives of the two men who appear with Christ at the Transfiguration.
"I've got one I also can't answer. If John the Baptist was, by Christ's account, in essence, the finest human to ever live, and if JTB is actually Elijah, then what were either or both of them doing in Hades at all?"
Christ does not say that John the Baptist was literally Elijah the Tishbite returned to earth. How could that be, since John the Baptist was conceived of Elizabeth and Zacarias? That would mean that Christianity believed in reincarnation. There is something in the patristic commentaries that, as I recall, even point out some ambiguity in Christ's statements that show that he is both saying that Elijah has come, and that he will come. I'll have to look it up.
When Elijah *the Tishbite* (as the LXX specifically says in Malachi) returns literally, it will not be by being reincarnated in another body and born of a woman. He will return from heaven with Enoch. Malachi refers simultaneously to St. John the Baptist (who is, so to speak, a 2nd Elijah) and to the literal return of *the* Elijah the Tishbite at the end of time, in his prophecy.
As another aside, I do not see why we would limit God by saying that only those mentioned in Scripture might be preserved from death or resurrected "prematurely." Those are just the ones we know about. Holy Tradition tells us that the Theotokos was probably taken up into heaven bodily after her death. Why Elijah, Enoch, and probably Moses -- and not her? Christ makes the ambiguous statement about St. John reported in the Gospel, saying to the other disciples "what is it to you if he doesn't die, but remain until I return." St. John spells out that Christ didn't say that he wouldn't die. But there are interesting implications to Christ's statement. I certainly wouldn't make assumptions about what God can and can't do, and Christ himself was telling us that we shouldn't.
I'll ping the others that you pinged, to see if they have further comments.
This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?
I would point to an excellent article by B.B. Warfield. Below is an excerpt:
This is the testimony of all the early witnesses - even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For example, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, "The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs" (Beni. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the "work and word" of Paul, i.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul's Epistles, "shall be written in the Holy Books," i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a "bishop" of the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by "sinking himself deeper" into the same "Book" which contained the Law of Moses ("Babl. Shabbath," 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of "New Books" (Ignatius), called the "Gospel and Apostles" (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the "Oracles" of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or "Scriptures" (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the "Holy Books" or "Bible" (Testt. XII. Patt.).
...
The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.
The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament By B.B. Warfield
The Orthodox Church titles him "Joseph the Betrothed." My understanding is that the intention was to remain in the betrothed state, which, as I understand, included "legal" co-habitation, but not licit "knowing." My understanding is that they never intended to marry, since it is not really a legal marriage unless there is "knowing."
When she became pregnant, Joseph assumed that it was by "a secret union" with another man (as our liturgical texts say). It is understandable that he would not want to marry her, since she had obviously, in his eyes, broken the vow that was the reason for the betrothal in the first place -- the preservation of her virginity.
If he loved her and wanted her as his wife in the ordinary sense that Protestants believe, his first reaction very well might have been to do the "best" thing, and take her to wife and decide to forgive and forget, covering her sin. If he had wanted her as his wife, but no longer wanted her because he was betrayed and shamed, his initial reaction might very well have been, in his anger, to do the "lawful" thing.
His actions in putting her away quietly reflect the actions of a distant relative who loves her enough not to want her to be stoned, but who no longer sees a reason to continue with the betrothal. This all fits in very well with Orthodox Tradition -- better, in my opinion, than does the Protestant explanation, although it is also a valid explanation.
He was instructed by the angel to take her to wife (i.e. "make an honest woman out of her" in the eyes of the world.) Our tradition is also that this formal taking of her to wife was to deceive Satan. In any event, they could not continue in the state of betrothal. The whole reason for Matthew 1:25 is to make clear that with the change from betrothal to formal, outward marriage, there was still no physical union -- making no mistake about her virginal conception. Consider that even though the Bible says that he took her to wife, this was only for the benefit of appearances to the world, since she obviously wasn't really his wife at that time, since they didn't consummate the marriage.
"The Church always had the scriptures and KNEW what the scriptures were. The problem was that there were Gnostic writings.
This, BTW, is what you always tell me about Catholics Councils. They only get together to CONFIRM what the Church ALREADY knows. Given your definition, when the Church meant to discuss which scriptures were inspired, then they were only CONFRIMING what was ALREADY known. That's all FK and I are saying. Would you disagree?"
I for one would not disagree at all. As with every Council, what was being done was deliberation to come to agreement and to formally declare on what the Church already knew.
This does not, though, mean that every Christian, every local Church, etc... knew self-evidently on the exact canon, or that individual Christians or clergy weren't deceived by Gnostic writings. Those books were always the real and only Scripture, but not all in the Church discerned them as such.
It is clear that the Gnostic bit is probably overplayed, since there is no evidence from the lists that we have available to us that any Gnostic books were ever considered by anyone of importance in the "official" Church to be Scriptural. Individual Christians may have been deceived or confused, and thus formal declarations on the canon would be helpful.
I will point out that the agreement on which books were Scriptural was *not* very controversial, since no Ecumenical Council ever had to decide on it. All formal declarations came from local councils or individual Fathers. Based on that evidence, I would largely agree that for the most part, the Church was probably largely in agreement from quite early times, without the need for formal declarations, on what was Scripture and what was not.
There was also the practical issue that as liturgical life matured, it was useful for an orderly and complete liturgical reading of the Scriptures to define exactly which books should be read in public in church.
Again, had this been a major issue that was hard to figure out, it would have been addressed by an Ecumenical Council.
It is true that the Eunuch was not baptised, but Acts 8:31 nevertheless says that he needed help understanding the scripture, and verse 35 says that St. Philip preached -- that is, interpreted, since the book was on the Eunuch's lap, -- the scripture. Thus understanding comes from apostolic authority, not from just the text. And we observe thie same thing today, -- baptised and even confirmed Christians hold opposite views on the scripture, so some of them had to interpret it wrongly.
We do not believe in private interpretations of scripture
Thnak you for saying that. Who are "we"? Most Protestants on this thread would say that they feel comfortalbe interpreting the scripture for themselves. My opinion is that they are mistaken, and they take Luther's or Calvin's or Don Brown's interpretation, but pretend it is their own.
unintelligible
I gave several examples of who one needs to know Greek and the Middle-eastern culture of antiquity to understand translated scripture. The point is that although theology is culture-invariant, we don't get the theology directly from the scripture as very little of it is in the form of theological treatise. In order to get theology form the scripture, one has to first understand the scripture, like the Eunuch in Acts 8, and for that apostolic authority is necessary, or else you get da Vinci code nonsense out of your scripture-reading.
Of course, but "firstborn" is indication of status, and does not imply that there was also second-born. You are, of course, correct that if one wants to read the scripture the way Full Court does, or the way Don Brown does, one can, if he disregards the Tradition of the Church.
Your first question was, what was in it for both parties, and I answered: Mary got a master of the house and Joseph got a homemaker. Your next question is, why not just cohabit, as relatives sometimes do. Well, since Joseph fathering a child with Mary was not exactly out of the realm of the possible, a sexual union between them would have been at least rumored, and therefore improper. Where did you get the idea that Mary was Joseph's niece? Surely whatever relation they had, if any, did not preclude marirage, and by the same token would have precluded cohabitation without marriage.
everything [Annalex] pointed out was found in this document
Simply because the document is rather comprehensive in presenting one version of events, that is consistent with the scripture, and specifically consistent with Luke 1:34. But is is a document of uncertain provenance, not canonical, and so is but a historical evidence dating in 2 century. The official teaching is expressed by the late Pope in the link I gave you in 6678, and he merely states that it is a mystery why Mary was betrothed while committed to celibacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.