Let’s lighten things up tonight, ping!
Neither the Bible nor Jewish custom of the time had anything at all in them about a celibate marriage. Would have been viewed as weird if not obscene.
The Bible itself also says nothing about the couple having for some obscure reason planned such a "union." In fact, there is nothing at all in the text to indicate they planned anything other than a normal Jewish marriage till first Joseph and then Mary were visited by angelic messengers.
Somebody doesn’t know Jewish history and traditions.
But more importantly, was Jesus red haired? that is the crucial theological question here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2425154/Ginger-Gene-showed-50k-years-ago-colder-climates-say-scientists.html
I’ll now go quietly crawl back into my man-cave and read military history.
Much of the author’s argument falls apart on the fact that the Gospel writers always refer to them as betrothed, not married.
While betrothal is not exactly the same thing as a modern engagement, the ancients were fully aware that it was something short of full marriage.
It is also relevant that ancient Judaism had nothing parallel to our present marriage ceremony, with public vows and such. The “ceremony” generally consisted of a procession through the streets, with the father of the bride taking her to her husband’s home, and handing her over to him. The essence of the process was the father publicly giving (or selling) the bride to her husband.
This was followed by a celebration at the new husband’s home, like the one at Cana. The wedding was normally consummated that night.
The period between when the father contracted his daughter in marriage and the procession through the streets was referred to as betrothal. Under the Law a betrothed woman was treated in many ways as a married one, for instance with regard to the law on rape, and breaking the betrothal required a divorce.
But there WAS a difference between betrothal and marriage and the Gospel writers presumably were indicating something by making this distinction.
In the Bible.Mary was betrothed, but the marriage was not scheduled to be consummated.Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.
... After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking ("nissu'in," "liḳḳuḥin").
I think that part of the story has been missed. While in some cultures, an old man marrying a young girl would be ordinary, I suspect that at the time, among Jews, it was thought of as extraordinary.
That is, not frowned upon, but unusual, or done for unusual reasons. In this case, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, were already elderly when she was born, which suggests that they died when she was still at a young age.
Girls in that time were considered as marriageable at the age of 12 years and six months. So even with a vow of chastity, as an orphan she would be more or less “assigned” for marriage to a man, so she would not starve to death, though she could choose from among candidates. And he would know that she had made a vow of chastity.
Matthew 1:25 says “until” .....
24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
13:55 and Mark 6:3 name four men called Jesus’ brethren: James, Joses (short for Joseph Jr.), Simon, and Judas called Jude. Verse 56 mentions that Jesus had sisters. The sisters are not named, but since the word is plural there were at least two of them. John 7:5 tells us his brothers didn’t believe in Jesus, and all three synoptic gospels tell of a time when his mother and brothers came to speak with Jesus. The implication is that they came to take him home, possibly to rethink his ministry because he was offending the Jewish leaders. That may be why Jesus didn’t go out to talk with them immediately.
Later, 1 Corinthians 15:7 says Jesus made a resurrection appearance to his brother James, which must have converted him. Then, Matthew 28:10 records that the rest of Jesus’ brothers would see him at a resurrection appearance in Galilee. So, Acts 1:14 says Mary and all the brothers were present when the Holy Spirit came upon believers at Pentecost. In Acts 12:17, Dr. Luke wrote that Peter sent word to James and his brothers of his miraculous release from prison. By the middle of the first Christian century James appears to be the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19 and 2:9). He wrote the epistle of James, and his brother Judas wrote the epistle of Jude in the New Testament (James 1:1; Jude 1:1).
Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:34-35 record that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was fathered by God’s Spirit. God, himself, testified at Jesus’ baptism: “This is my beloved Son!” (Matthew 3:17). John 3:16 identifies Jesus as God’s only begotten son, meaning he was the only son God ever fathered. So, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. Matthew 1:25 says Joseph did not have relations with Mary until her first son was born, implying that she had other children. Joseph would have been the father of Mary’s other children. That would make them the half-brothers and sisters of Jesus.
In an effort to keep Mary pure and a perpetual virgin some church dogmas declare that Mary never had any other children. This is not supported by Scripture. Jesus was miraculously born, but he had a normal family with a mother, foster father, half brothers and sisters, aunt Mary and uncle Cleophas (John 19:25), and cousins Elizabeth and her son, John the baptizer (Luke 1:13 and 36).
- Dr. Tom Lovorn i
A long time ago?
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, planned to send her away secretly. (Matt. 1:18-19)
The one year engagement/betrothal period was for the protection of BOTH parties. It showed the wife if the husband was able to provide and honest and, for the husband, if the wife was pregnant by some other man.
Do Catholics just swallow whatever their currently popular "apologists" spout or do most think it through first?
Different faith traditions can believe what they want to believe but the bottom line is we should respect the Holy Family and not cause pain to other believers who can’t or won’t accept the traditional teachings. I don’t think the two sides will ever come together over this.
If this logic is correct, then Mary and Joseph's marriage was never ratified (e.g. confirmed, consented). That would mean Joseph never confirmed or consented to the marriage.
Is this the path Catholics would like to take?
None of this matters. the Bible says nothing about Mary’s perpetual virginity ... period. People have invented things that don’t exist in the Bible for unknown reasons.
January 15, 1
I guess you were not invited. No one mentioned the baby. Mary’s younger sister took care of her for the afternoon.
The reception was at the Moses lounge, you know..the place owned by Joe’s uncle Enoch. He has “friends.”
The best gift of the day was a beach set for the baby. Like he needs a bathing suit.
Lots of wine and fish for dinner. It just didn’t stop. Who knew Mary’s parents would spring for the open bar.
Why in the world would Mary have been getting married in the first place if she had taken a vow to never know a man? The above argument implies Joseph was okay with that which is obviously absurd. What could possibly have been his motive to agree to such a thing? The article doesn't address this rather obvious point (I wonder why?).
Betrothal was more serious than a modern engagagment but it was still before the marriage ceremony and the marriage was only consummated at that point. If he's implying betrothal had to have been after then he's full of it.
And then of course they declare that Jesus brothers were actually his cousins. Righhht.
And yet according to Catholicism, the marriage was never consummated, which means Joseph was also a virgin.
1. How does the writer know Mary’s parents were elderly when she was born? Never read that in the Bible.
2. How did the writer know Joseph was much older than Mary? Where does it say THAT in the Bible? He may have been as much as ten years older, but if he were say 24 and she was 14 that wouldn’t seem that strange.
3. They were probably legally married prior to going to Bethlehem, most likely before Mary began to “show”, otherwise in the eyes of many Jesus most certainly would have been a bastard child, and would not even seem like Joseph’s at all. Maybe when the angel said “Do not be afraid to take Mary for your wife” Joseph took care of the legalities right away.
4. Joseph must have been quite a man to be able to deal with all of the above.
The extreme deception the Catholic religion will go thru to pervert the scriptures for the purpose of fooling its own Catholics is beyond comical...It is hilarious...
Does the word mean divorce??? It could...It could also mean:
ἀπολύω
apoluō
ap-ol-oo'-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: - (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
To pick a word out of the middle of all those and claim it has to be that word is ridiculous...
Further, the angel then tells Joseph:
Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).
Unfortunately for Catholics, the scriptures do not end where they tell you guys they end...Here's the rest of the story...
Mat 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 did not take his wife...He took unto him his wife...They were not together before that...
Contrary to what the Catholic religion tells you, a betrothal is the promise of a wedding...A wedding is not a ceremony other than exchanging money or animals or both...The wedding is a party with tons of guests and food which is a public display that the betrothal has come to fruition and sexual intercourse consummates the marriage...
So look again...
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
While they were living separately, Mary gets pregnant...That's clear...
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Espoused means wife??? So Joseph was with his Wife Wife??? What kind of idiot would say espoused means wife???
Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
We can take everything the Catholics say about the issue and file it in the round file and instead, believe God...
Where are the names of Mary”s parents even mentioned in the Bible? How did we get the story about Joseph being old and Mary’s and Joseph’s other children not being siblings of Jesus? It’s all made up.
When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God,
The ones who argue the other side of the issue insists that since Jesus had brothers and sisters that Mary absolutely had to have other Children but can not come up with one scripture that says anything about Mary having any other child except Jesus.
And this is the way with so many arguments concerning religion, both sides does this in arguing against Mormonism they take one little scripture that has nothing to do with the issue they are discussing and try to say it says something it does not say.