Mary and Joseph

[Alithis]

I think people get "hung up" on the concept of "purity"; which probably has more to do with their own feelings of impurity, than it has to do with someone else being holy.

Which I find it ironic that so many point to Mary? Is this because they blame Eve for the fall and Mary has to now somehow "redeem" female humanity? So now sex is the "boogie man" so Mary has to remain a virgin?

"Interesting, very interesting" Sargent Shultz - Hogan's Heros

Which in reality..... if one was to bear concern for a specific individual producing offspring the one to be "concerned" about would be Jesus. Which has wholly to do with theological difficulties adding people to the Trinity would have created, permanent presence on earth through progeny and the havoc that would have reaped on the redemption plan. After all it would have been much easier to produce a race of "the last Adam" in the flesh than to redeem a bunch of sinners who hated Him anyways! (Which none of that really has anything to do with God incarnate..... ehh... engaging the act. After all, we know God does like to create things - but that's a subject for a whole other thread!)



"Some are made eunuchs by nature, some by men, but one has made himself a eunuch for the sake of reigning in the kingdom of God. By the power of God who restrains him, let him continue in the command." Matthew 19:12

(OK now - who (besides me) is willing to tackle that verse!)



Father: "Jesus, come to ME and give ME that; because if You are going to pay for their sin - Ya aint got any place else to go with it."

Jesus: "Yes Abba, most certainly there are aspects to being incarnated that have made my life..... complicated. Yet YOU have not hid anything from me of the way I was created; which I am grateful for. Be fruitful and multiply is still a glorious command even if I'm constrained from doing so by a greater task. Still, YOU give me a space to be next to YOU in. What is man that YOU are mindful of him or the son of man that YOU take care of me. THANK YOU!"

"So now I guess insecure men stick mom with their hang ups? And I can certainly attest to the fact that the other children she bore were sinners... and at times - down right brats! MY kids would have never acted like that!"

Father: "LOL - funny Jesus, really funny!"

.... there is a way to say it .. and a way that's ... well ,not really the way to say it lol

 

[The Righterzpen]

.... there is a way to say it .. and a way that's ... well ,not really the way to say it lol

What, you didn't like the way I said it? LOL

I find it intriguing, as well as perplexing that many ask the question; (Some even bold enough to ask directly.) yet very few are willing to discuss the issue. (Which really has to do with us as humans contending with ourselves; as we ask God "What am I suppose to make out of this?" or "How do I deal with this in the confines of my own circumstances?" or even "What am I suppose to do with this?")

Consequences of the profound depth of the fall I guess? What's given to us in what is a reflection of maybe a 10 second glimpse into the glory and goodness of God that we so easily seem to confuse ourselves with and twist into feelings of shame; the emotion of which (feeling shame) we seek to avoid at all costs.

I guess maybe I understand better now how profound the fall really was. Humanity's disobedience was not a little event! Nor was it an easy thing God took on to redeem any of us!

That's sobering!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Mary is the "new Eve"

So it is about "blaming Eve"?

I'm sure you must realize that both Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. Therefore humanity does not need to be "redeemed" by gender and thus we don't need a "new Eve".

I don't know if you know that concept actually comes out of Gnosticism. (The notion that "the feme" has to secure redemption by correcting "her" transgression.)

And that concept simply springs out of man's failure to take responsibility for his own action. I.E. Adam saying to God: "it was the woman YOU gave me!" (Like first it's Eve's fault and then it's God's fault Adam ate the fruit?)

Father: "Yeah Adam.... ya think I believe that one? you're not off the hook buddy!" (Looks at Jesus, points to Adam and shakes head.)

 

[FenderTL5]

So it is about "blaming Eve"?

I'm sure you must realize that both Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. Therefore humanity does not need to be "redeemed" by gender and thus we don't need a "new Eve".

I don't know if you know that concept actually comes out of Gnosticism. (The notion that "the feme" has to secure redemption by correcting "her" transgression.)

And that concept simply springs out of man's failure to take responsibility for his own action. I.E. Adam saying to God: "it was the woman YOU gave me!" (Like first it's Eve's fault and then it's God's fault Adam ate the fruit?)

Father: "Yeah Adam.... ya think I believe that one? you're not off the hook buddy!" (Looks at Jesus, points to Adam and shakes head.)

..except that Christ is the new Adam.

 

[Der Alte]

My point exactly. There wasn't even an established canon until many years later. Tradition established it, not the other way around.

As someone else already noted, you are changing your story. Before you said that the NT books were written hundreds of years later. It was not tradition, that gave us the NT. If God alone was not totally responsible for every book in the NT, then it is worthless

 

[Skittles]

So it is about "blaming Eve"?

I'm sure you must realize that both Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. Therefore humanity does not need to be "redeemed" by gender and thus we don't need a "new Eve".

I don't know if you know that concept actually comes out of Gnosticism. (The notion that "the feme" has to secure redemption by correcting "her" transgression.)

And that concept simply springs out of man's failure to take responsibility for his own action. I.E. Adam saying to God: "it was the woman YOU gave me!" (Like first it's Eve's fault and then it's God's fault Adam ate the fruit?)

Father: "Yeah Adam.... ya think I believe that one? you're not off the hook buddy!" (Looks at Jesus, points to Adam and shakes head.)

Not sure where you get that saying 'Mary is the "new Eve" ' is "blaming" Eve. Both Adam and Eve sinned - and in some ways Adam's sin was greater because he failed to fulfill his role and that failure lead to Eve's temptation. So, as sin came into the world through man and woman; redemption also came into the world through man (the human nature of Jesus Christ) and woman (Mary) because both showed obedience to God and accepted His will - which was part of what Adam and Eve failed to do. And in this way Jesus was the "new Adam" and Mary was the "new Eve". Both man and woman were created in God's image - God used both to usher in His redemption.

 

[RDKirk]

Wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.

I only became aware of the Eastern Orthodox view about five years ago. This appears to me to be quite reasonable and not in conflict with scripture.

If Joseph was a widower with children from a prior marriage and Mary was a subsequent younger wife, his elder children would be called "sisters and brothers" to Jesus. I personally see no reason to require Mary to have been a perpetual virgin, but even at that, the Orthodox view still resolves some other niggles I'd noted in scripture:

Jesus' relatives displayed a certain amount of disrespect toward Him in two written accounts. This would be flat-out contemptuous and surprising if He were the eldest son of Joseph, but perfectly understandable and expected if He was the youngest sibling.

Curiously absent from all scripture is any mention of Joseph's parents or relatives. If he were a young man and Mary were his first wife, that would have been a marriage arranged by his parents with Mary's parents. It would be they, not he, who would have begun divorce proceedings against Mary. The absence of any mention of his parents suggests that he had arranged for the marriage himself as an older man.

In Luke's account, the young boy Jesus was presumed to have been with the other clan children as the family left (in a clan caravan) from Jerusalem, thus His parents did not bother to ascertain His whereabouts for the first three days of the journey. That presumption would make sense if Jesus were a younger sibling under the supervision of older siblings. It makes less sense if Jesus was the eldest sibling and thus accountable for the younger.

The fact that Jesus made a point of assigning His mother's care to John also suggests to me that there were no other children (sons, at least) of Mary because her care would have automatically fallen into their hands.

 

[RDKirk]

Only in our culture; not in the culture of that time.

14 year old girls, these days, are in school. In those days, women were not allowed to learn.

Jewish girls were allowed to learn as much as most boys were allowed to learn. A boy on track to be a religious leader would be a different case, but basic training in the Law was common to both boys and girls.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Both Adam and Eve sinned - and in some ways Adam's sin was greater because he failed to fulfill his role and that failure lead to Eve's temptation. So, as sin came into the world through man and woman; redemption also came into the world through man (the human nature of Jesus Christ)

I certainly agree with you here on this portion of statement.

Yet if Christ is the only Redeemer (which I've never heard a Roman Catholic deny that); than how is Mary the second Eve? You say "they were both obedient". A lot of people are / were obedient; but Jesus is on a totally different paradigm of existence than any of us. He is the only name under heaven by where men can be saved (and I don't think I've ever heard a RC deny that either) than why the need for a second Eve?

In gnosticism the "redeemer / co redeemer" were husband and wife; (but since Jesus never had an earthy wife in His earthy life). (Ahhh..... groan. LOL) Which I know gnosticism had influence in early Christian sects; could this be where the origins of this came in as an "early tradition"?

 

[Alithis]

So it is about "blaming Eve"?

I'm sure you must realize that both Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. Therefore humanity does not need to be "redeemed" by gender and thus we don't need a "new Eve".

I don't know if you know that concept actually comes out of Gnosticism. (The notion that "the feme" has to secure redemption by correcting "her" transgression.)

And that concept simply springs out of man's failure to take responsibility for his own action. I.E. Adam saying to God: "it was the woman YOU gave me!" (Like first it's Eve's fault and then it's God's fault Adam ate the fruit?)

Father: "Yeah Adam.... ya think I believe that one? you're not off the hook buddy!" (Looks at Jesus, points to Adam and shakes head.)

behind all this perpetual virginity rubbish ..and yes i call it rubbish . openly .is that motive . the motive that seeks to glorify the woman . it is always been of note that paul spoke to those at ephesus reminding them to NOT do that because wo-man which means came from man .. did not exist without man . man was created and woman came from man woman is never ever before man . jesus became flesh and was birthed into the world via the woman . but never was the woman before him. thus the man given title (man made inspired from evil or the flesh ) which is given absolutely NO where in scripture of "mother of god " is a blasphemy of the worst nature . this topic of perpetual virginity rubbish is just another angle trying to shore up that absolute travesty of doctrines .

 

[Skittles]

I certainly agree with you here on this portion of statement.

Yet if Christ is the only Redeemer (which I've never heard a Roman Catholic deny that); than how is Mary the second Eve? You say "they were both obedient". A lot of people are / were obedient; but Jesus is on a totally different paradigm of existence than any of us. He is the only name under heaven by where men can be saved (and I don't think I've ever heard a RC deny that either) than why the need for a second Eve?

In gnosticism the "redeemer / co redeemer" were husband and wife; (but since Jesus never had an earthy wife in His earthy life). (Ahhh..... groan. LOL) Which I know gnosticism had influence in early Christian sects; could this be where the origins of this came in as an "early tradition"?

Christ is the second person of the Trinity - He is divine. Mary is neither of those things. She is a created human like you and I. But her YES was necessary for God to bring salvation to us. God COULD have brought that salvation another way (or not at all); but for His reasons He chose to bring salvation (Jesus Christ) through a woman (Mary). And because He respects her free will just like He does all of ours - her YES was necessary for that approach to work. An analogy I've heard is that if Christ is the saving water in a well, Mary is the bucket that carried the water to the world. Again, she is a created woman - but she has a singular honor that no other person in history had. And honoring her for her uniqueness just points to how special Jesus Christ is. And as she said in John 2:5 "do whatever HE tells you".

 

[The Righterzpen]

I only became aware of the Eastern Orthodox view about five years ago. This appears to me to be quite reasonable and not in conflict with scripture.

If Joseph was a widower with children from a prior marriage and Mary was a subsequent younger wife, his elder children would be called "sisters and brothers" to Jesus. I personally see no reason to require Mary to have been a perpetual virgin, but even at that, the Orthodox view still resolves some other niggles I'd noted in scripture:

Jesus' relatives displayed a certain amount of disrespect toward Him in two written accounts. This would be flat-out contemptuous and surprising if He were the eldest son of Joseph, but perfectly understandable and expected if He was the youngest sibling.

Curiously absent from all scripture is any mention of Joseph's parents or relatives. If he were a young man and Mary were his first wife, that would have been a marriage arranged by his parents with Mary's parents. It would be they, not he, who would have begun divorce proceedings against Mary. The absence of any mention of his parents suggests that he had arranged for the marriage himself as an older man.

In Luke's account, the young boy Jesus was presumed to have been with the other clan children as the family left (in a clan caravan) from Jerusalem, thus His parents did not bother to ascertain His whereabouts for the first three days of the journey. That presumption would make sense if Jesus were a younger sibling under the supervision of older siblings. It makes less sense if Jesus was the eldest sibling and thus accountable for the younger.

The fact that Jesus made a point of assigning His mother's care to John also suggests to me that there were no other children (sons, at least) of Mary because her care would have automatically fallen into their hands.

Mary's parents aren't mentioned either; and if say Joseph was 25 years old and his parents were deceased already; yeah, he'd be arranging his own marriage. So lack of mention of parents does not stand on solid ground. You're bringing this up though, does cause me to ask "well what about Mary's parents" because they are conspicuously absent too. Mary does go to her cousin Elizabeth so maybe she was "under their care" prior to being married?

Now did Jesus's family display "disrespect" to Him? Yeah they thought at one point He was nuts. But unless there are other Scriptures that say they mocked Him (which if there are; I'm not aware of); thinking or fearing someone is insane isn't necessarily "disrespect". They came to get Him and wanted Him to come with them because I think they were afraid for Him. They didn't understand and they would not understand until after Pentecost.

So.... also, if Jesus was youngest and had older half siblings, why would Mary not have gone to one of them? That doesn't exactly make sense either. And on the flip side of this, if Jesus was the oldest, it's not that Mary could not have gone to one of her other sons, only that Jesus specifically assigned John to take care of her. Why? the Bible doesn't tell us that.

And lastly the going to Jerusalem. If I'm understanding tradition correctly, boys did not participate in these feast days until they were 12. So, younger kids would not have been present that Jesus would be responsible to watch anyways and if older siblings were responsible for Jesus and He got lost; I'd think they would have notified the parents long before 3 days of being missing had passed. There's no indication in that passage that no one other than Mary and Joseph are looking for Jesus.

So, although yes you brought up good points. There still are alternate explanations.

 

[The Righterzpen]

behind all this perpetual virginity rubbish ..and yes i call it rubbish . openly .is that motive . the motive that seeks to glorify the woman . it is always been of note that paul spoke to those at ephesus reminding them to NOT do that because wo-man which means came from man .. did not exist without man . man was created and woman came from man woman is never ever before man . jesus became flesh and was birthed into the world via the woman . but never was the woman before him. thus the man given title (man made inspired from evil or the flesh ) which is given absolutely NO where in scripture of "mother of god " is a blasphemy of the worst nature . this topic of perpetual virginity rubbish is just another angle trying to shore up that absolute travesty of doctrines .

Interesting connection between Ephesians, women / men and Mary. Adam is created first, Eve comes from him and so thus the required Redeemer can be a singular male. I'd agree with that.

I would not go as far as to say "mother of god is blasphemy of the worst nature". Calling Mary "mother of god" is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So even though I'd agree with you that it's error. It's not unpardonable error.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Christ is the second person of the Trinity - He is divine. Mary is neither of those things. She is a created human like you and I. But her YES was necessary for God to bring salvation to us. God COULD have brought that salvation another way (or not at all); but for His reasons He chose to bring salvation (Jesus Christ) through a woman (Mary). And because He respects her free will just like He does all of ours - her YES was necessary for that approach to work. An analogy I've heard is that if Christ is the saving water in a well, Mary is the bucket that carried the water to the world. Again, she is a created woman - but she has a singular honor that no other person in history had. And honoring her for her uniqueness just points to how special Jesus Christ is. And as she said in John 2:5 "do whatever HE tells you".

I understand what you're saying and I agree it's conclusively logical. Obviously I agree with you too that Mary is created and not divine and "being born of a woman" was absolutely necessary to salvation. 100% with you there!

I would beg to differ on the notion of "free will" relating to man (but that's a different subject). God's plan is not frustrated by anything we do, so even if Mary got "cold feet" and told the angel "No, I can't deal with this." Jesus would have just been born of some other woman. Through God's sovereignty and omniscience though; He knew / planned for Mary saying "yes". So in that regard, I don't see her obedience any more special than Noah, or Abraham or anybody else's for that matter. Jesus though (being a person of a different paradigm) in a certain sense; His obedience was to be expected. So in that regard, I don't see His obedience as being special as much as was His willingness. Jesus did have choices. He didn't have to do this. And if He chose not to, He still would have been accepted of the Father because of His demonstration of the character of God. (He was obedient to the law.)

So absolutely I agree Jesus was obviously unique. The Scripture does say Mary was "blessed among women"; and I can not speak to any authority of what that means because I have not studied it.

 

[Skittles]

So absolutely I agree Jesus was obviously unique. The Scripture does say Mary was "blessed among women"; and I can not speak to any authority of what that means because I have not studied it.

maybe it means she's blessed among all women because she alone had the singular honor of carrying the Savior of the world and ushering in the redemption of humanity - since Sacred Scripture confirms "All generations will call be blessed" - the ark of the new covenant.

 

[The Righterzpen]

maybe it means she's blessed among all women because she alone had the singular honor of carrying the Savior of the world and ushering in the redemption of humanity - since Sacred Scripture confirms "All generations will call be blessed" - the ark of the new covenant.

I'll have to research it. I still think God could have used another woman. "Ushering in salvation" though was not dependent on her. It was God's sovereign decree that determined before the foundations of the world this is what would happen. I think the specialness was in the event, more than it was in the person who's womb was utilized.

 

[RDKirk]

Mary's parents aren't mentioned either; and if say Joseph was 25 years old and his parents were deceased already; yeah, he'd be arranging his own marriage. So lack of mention of parents does not stand on solid ground. You're bringing this up though, does cause me to ask "well what about Mary's parents" because they are conspicuously absent too. Mary does go to her cousin Elizabeth so maybe she was "under their care" prior to being married?

Mary's parents would not have been the ones preparing legal action. They had no role in the narrative unless/until Mary was brought before witnesses to confirm the divorce.

Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law,
and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace,
he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

If Mary had been "the wife of his youth," that contract would have been contracted by his parents, and it would have been his parents taking legal action.

Now did Jesus's family display "disrespect" to Him? Yeah they thought at one point He was nuts. But unless there are other Scriptures that say they mocked Him (which if there are; I'm not aware of); thinking or fearing someone is insane isn't necessarily "disrespect". They came to get Him and wanted Him to come with them because I think they were afraid for Him. They didn't understand and they would not understand until after Pentecost.

Notions of respect were far more formal in that era (and even in the Middle East today).

Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

If Jesus had been the eldest male of the family (Joseph presumed dead by this time...another reason to think he was significantly older than Mary), nobody would have interrupted Him in the middle of teaching to call His attention to younger siblings and mother. That would have been seriously disrespectful of the Master. The convention of waiting until the eldest of the family has finished speaking is in force yet today.

So.... also, if Jesus was youngest and had older half siblings, why would Mary not have gone to one of them?

They would not have been Mary's sons. There is no provision anywhere in scripture for anyone but a woman's own sons to care for her, and the very frequent and strong emphasis in the Law and throughout scripture on a man (or a man's brother) making sure a woman had a chance to have sons of her own strongly indicate that she was dependent on her own sons.

That doesn't exactly make sense either. And on the flip side of this, if Jesus was the oldest, it's not that Mary could not have gone to one of her other sons, only that Jesus specifically assigned John to take care of her. Why? the Bible doesn't tell us that.

The bible doesn't narrate what the audience already understood: A woman's sons took care of her. Again, that is made clear throughout scripture. There would not have been a need for Jesus to mention anything at all if Mary had other sons to take over the role scripture makes clear that they would have had.

And lastly the going to Jerusalem. If I'm understanding tradition correctly, boys did not participate in these feast days until they were 12. So, younger kids would not have been present that Jesus would be responsible to watch anyways and if older siblings were responsible for Jesus and He got lost; I'd think they would have notified the parents long before 3 days of being missing had passed. There's no indication in that passage that no one other than Mary and Joseph are looking for Jesus.

Do you think that the entire extended family went to Jerusalem and left all the younger children at home?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Mary's parents would not have been the ones preparing legal action. They had no role in the narrative unless/until Mary was brought before witnesses to confirm the divorce.

I was talking about their wedding not their divorce. If both their parents were dead, than Joseph could certainly have been arranging his own wedding and who ever was the custodial guardian of Mary - arranging from that end. Yet assuming Mary's parents are still alive, because she wouldn't have been more than 20. The scripture does not say anything about them or any of the arrangements. So just because they don't speak of Joseph's parents, doesn't mean they weren't alive and he wasn't younger. I do suppose it would be a reasonable assumption that if Joseph is making the decisions, that his parents could very well be deceased. It doesn't say though that Joseph is deciding what to do totally independent of anyone else.

So, I think the most we can speculate given the context of the text is that his parents are deceased.

If Jesus had been the eldest male of the family (Joseph presumed dead by this time...another reason to think he was significantly older than Mary), nobody would have interrupted Him in the middle of teaching to call His attention to younger siblings and mother. That would have been seriously disrespectful of the Master. The convention of waiting until the eldest of the family has finished speaking is in force yet today.

Joseph could have died at 40 years old from falling off a ladder. The Scripture does not tell us when he died; other than we know Jesus was more than 12 years old; because Joseph is in the "got lost in the temple" account. So just because Joseph was deceased does not automatically mean he was that much older.

Keep in mind though they interrupted Jesus because they thought He'd lost His mind. And if your family is coming to get you because they fear you've lost your marbles - it would not matter how old you were.

The bible doesn't narrate what the audience already understood: A woman's sons took care of her. Again, that is made clear throughout scripture. There would not have been a need for Jesus to mention anything at all if Mary had other sons to take over the role scripture makes clear that they would have had.

And I would agree, mom would have gone to the next oldest son. While Jesus was still alive though and remained unmarried, He'd taken up the responsibility of her and what ever kids were left. If Jesus had gotten married at 20 something years old, what would have happened to Mary? Would the next oldest brother than be responsible for her and the rest of the kids? (Would have depended on how old the next brother was.) Would Jesus have had to take the whole rest of the family with Him? Yes, He would have.

Currently in the middle east; if a woman's husband dies, she stays with his family because their children are part of his clan. Only if they get divorced does she go back to her own family; but she can't take her own children.

So, say Joseph died when Jesus was 13. (Which I don't think happened.) than Mary and any other children she had would still stay with Joseph's family. Even if Joseph had older kids; (which I don't think he did) they would have still been part of his clan.

But remember, the brothers and siblings thought Jesus was crazy, so for reasons we aren't told, Jesus assigned mom to John's care. Maybe He trusted John more than He trusted the brothers at that point? We don't know. Scriptures don't tell us. But the fact that it mentions that John gets mom, would have been noted to be unusual. So, I still don't think it's hard and fast to say all these "brothers and sisters" were all children from a previous marriage of Joseph; because, certainly the sisters would not have been there if they were not Mary's children. Certainly they would have been married and if they had no connection to Mary, Jesus would not have been a concern of theirs. Same goes for "brothers" who would not have been blood relatives of Mary.

Do you think that the entire extended family went to Jerusalem and left all the younger children at home?

Not everyone went to all the feasts every year and for various reasons. There would have been family that stayed behind in Nazareth that they would have been able to leave kids between 2 and 12 years old with. After all, people would still have to tend animals and so on and so forth. (Children were usually weened at 3 years old; unless there is an infant. If Mary had any children under 2 when Jesus was 12, that baby would have been with Mary and Joseph; because basically up until 2 years old, their primary source of nutrition was breast milk.)

 

[Skittles]

I'll have to research it. I still think God could have used another woman. "Ushering in salvation" though was not dependent on her. It was God's sovereign decree that determined before the foundations of the world this is what would happen. I think the specialness was in the event, more than it was in the person who's womb was utilized.

I’m more inclined to honor the only woman who shared blood with God through an umbilical cord.

 

[RDKirk]

I’m more inclined to honor the only woman who shared blood with God through an umbilical cord.

There is no shared blood through the umbilical cord in a healthy pregnancy.

I personally presume Mary's pregnancy with Jesus was healthy.