Mary and Joseph

Alithis said:

Its quite unbelievable the extent they go to to twist manipulate and mangle the simple written scripture.
Notice how they said .."you say"..s..she was wife..
But thats so dishonest. I didnt say it..the scripture does..
Its just so sad there is no love for truth in any of it.
There is love for tradition OVER truth.
And as is always the case..people will Always serve that which they love the most ..

Click to expand...

Yea we are just those EVIL TRADITIONALISTS, trying to deceive everyone.

Thankfully they have your infallible scriptural interpretation to despel all our deception!

HTacianas said:

Well, honestly, you're only some living fallible guy.

Now if you can show me in the bible where it says "Mary and Joseph then had other children" I will believe you.

.

Click to expand...

The fact that the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters tells us that she had other children. It really is that simple.

Selene03 said:

True, but she was also on the verge of getting married. If I was a Virgin going to get married and someone came to me, saying that I will conceive a son, my response would be.....”how do you know that I will have a son rather than a daughter?” Do you understand? I would not be asking “HOW” when I knew no man. Being betrothed, I would automatically assume that the conception of the child would be through the consummation between me and my betrothed after the wedding.

Click to expand...

Mary did not say, "How will this be seeing that I will never have marital relations with a man?" Clearly, from the story, the conception was to be immediate, otherwise Mary would not have asked the question in the first place. She was not that dumb.

Ttalkkugjil said:

The Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. In my thinking, they were absolutely the biological children of Mary and Joseph.

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?

Oh and the canon ever and always outweighs anything written in non-canon.

Click to expand...

It may be your thinking. It is demonstrably wrong.

Justified112 said:

The fact that the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters tells us that she had other children. It really is that simple.

Actually, the fact that they were not there to console their grieving mother says a lot about His brothers and sisters. Also they mocked Jesus and didnt' accept Him as the Messiah. So there is a lot about their character to explain why Jesus entrusted Mary to John.​

Click to expand...

When did the apostles mock Christ on the Cross?! Provide a verse.

And its only simple to you because you are ignoring all the posts discussing how brothers and sisters often referred to close relatives such as cousins.

☦Marius☦ said:

When did the apostles mock Christ on the Cross?! Provide a verse.

Click to expand...

I didn't say the Apostles mocked Jesus. I said His siblings mocked Him. Trying reading before responding.

And its only simple to you because you are ignoring all the posts discussing how brothers and sisters often referred to close relatives such as cousins.

Click to expand...

I have addressed that issue twice that I can think of on this thread and one of those responses was to you. So, you are clearly not reading my responses and are reacting to stuff I didn't say.

Mountainmike said:

It may be your thinking. It is demonstrably wrong.

Click to expand...

No, it is not demonstrably wrong. The plain and natural sense of the text indicates they were his biological siblings through Mary.

Haha.. I know you were just asking ...made me laugh. I have NEVER heard of this before. We can go farther...I read one saying he was 90 when he married Mary haha. " according to Jewish law and customs of the day, Mary and Joseph probably would have both been young when they married. “Girls were usually engaged sometime between the ages of 12 and 15, and would be married sometime thereafter, at 15 or 16, and boys would have been 19 or 20,"

Some of this stuff being talked about dates back to 5th and 6th century. Something I would put no weight in.

HTacianas said:

Or believe what you tell me to believe. That's more the case.

Click to expand...

Yetvthats what you expect of others..to believe what your church says simply because your church says it
And ignore and cancel simple basic scripture to do so.

Alithis said:

Yetvthats what you expect of others..to believe what your church says simply because your church says it
And ignore and cancel simple basic scripture to do so.

Click to expand...

Actually the Church has never told me to believe anything. I formulated my own beliefs long before I ever set foot in an Orthodox Church.

Justified112 said:

No, it is not demonstrably wrong. The plain and natural sense of the text indicates they were his biological siblings through Mary.

Click to expand...

To them if the text says ... The wall of the house was blue.. We will say .. It means the wall of the house was blue. But They will say "No it means the tennants of the house were sad" ... They will read anything into it to justify mary worship.

And this thread topic ended at the first reply that said.. Its not written what age mary was. ..

HTacianas said:

Actually the Church has never told me to believe anything. I formulated my own beliefs long before I ever set foot in an Orthodox Church.

Click to expand...

Well you should repent ..metanoia ,change your mind and believe what the angel spoke to mary as recorded in scripture ever so plainly and obviously . not add external opinions to it.

Alithis said:

Well you should repent ..metanoia ,change your mind and believe what the angel spoke to mary as recorded in scripture ever so plainly and obviously . not add external opinions to it.

Click to expand...

Not add external opinions? You mean like yours? Was it you or someone else earlier who told me I shouldn't pay attention to dead scholars or something similar?

Justified112 said:

I didn't say the Apostles mocked Jesus. I said His siblings mocked Him. Trying reading before responding.


I have addressed that issue twice that I can think of on this thread and one of those responses was to you. So, you are clearly not reading my responses and are reacting to stuff I didn't say.

Click to expand...

You are correct I misread that. However you still didn't provide evidence that they mocked him on the cross.

Really I must have missed your provided sources for how the Jews did in fact not use the word brother to refer to cousins. Please point me to these posts.

Alithis said:

Yetvthats what you expect of others..to believe what your church says simply because your church says it
And ignore and cancel simple basic scripture to do so.

Click to expand...

It's not a cancellation or an ignoring. Like everyone else is saying, if you know Jewish culture at the time then you will understand that it isn't contradictory.

I expect you to follow the words of Paul who tells us to follow the traditions and church authorities. The ever virginity has been since the first century and has been passed down by the elders we are commanded by an apostle to obey. You can pick and choose which Scriptures to follow all you want, but to listen to Paul is to follow Apostolic tradition.

All4Christ said:

Agreed. To add in that, since it was the custom at the time, I don’t believe it was creepy.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was creepy as well. It was the custom at that time. Wasn't it also the same in colonial America especially in the South?

Justified112 said:

Mary did not say, "How will this be seeing that I will never have marital relations with a man?" Clearly, from the story, the conception was to be immediate, otherwise Mary would not have asked the question in the first place. She was not that dumb.

Click to expand...

Nothing in the story says it will be immediate. The Angel told Mary that she WILL have a son. WILL is future tense.

prodromos said:

"The students worked quietly until the teacher returned to the classroom". This statement does not say anything about what the students did on the teacher's return. Did they change from their previous condition of working quietly? The text doesn't say one way or the other.
The Greek text is actually about the most concise and efficient use of the language to state that Jesus' birth was not the result of a sexual union.

Click to expand...

Joseph “knew Mary not until she brought forth her firstborn” does not say anything about what happened afterward. For example:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

Alithis said:

To them if the text says ... The wall of the house was blue.. We will say .. It means the wall of the house was blue. But They will say "No it means the tennants of the house were sad" ... They will read anything into it to justify mary worship.

And this thread topic ended at the first reply that said.. Its not written what age mary was. ..

Click to expand...

Alithis said:

Well you should repent ..metanoia ,change your mind and believe what the angel spoke to mary as recorded in scripture ever so plainly and obviously . not add external opinions to it.

Click to expand...

No offense, but your attitude doesn't exactly draw me to believe what you are saying bares any fruits. I primarily came to Orthodoxy because the people were more humble then any I had met in other Churches. You making your own opinion as infalible (becoming your own Pope), isn't going to convince me that what you say is of the spirit.

☦Marius☦ said:

You are correct I misread that. However you still didn't provide evidence that they mocked him on the cross.

Click to expand...

(sigh) I didn't say the mocked him on the cross.

His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. (Joh 7:3-5)

They did not believe Jesus, in fact, there is a mocking, ridiculing sarcastic tone in their statements above. It is very similar to Satan trying to tempt Jesus to perform a miracle by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the temple. Secondly, there is the passage from Mark:

And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
(Mar 3:20-21)

The phrase οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ refers to kinsmen, those who had same origin. These, in the entire context refer to his siblings and mother as seen in the verses that follow down to v. 31. VV. 22-30 are parenthetical to the entire narrative. The narrative picks up again at v. 31.

Really I must have missed your provided sources for how the Jews did in fact not use the word brother to refer to cousins. Please point me to these posts.

Click to expand...

What I said was that you can't simply plug that usage into adelphos any time it suits you. I said that you had the burden of proof in order to demonstrate that when that word is used referencing Jesus' siblings that it always referred to cousins. You can feel free to show me from the Greek that "cousins" is the intended meaning. It's not enough to say what a word can mean. You have to show in a given text that the context requires a specific usage.





I expect you to follow the words of Paul who tells us to follow the traditions and church authorities. The ever virginity has been since the first century and has been passed down by the elders we are commanded by an apostle to obey. You can pick and choose which Scriptures to follow all you want, but to listen to Paul is to follow Apostolic tradition.[/QUOTE]

☦Marius☦ said:

You are correct I misread that. However you still didn't provide evidence that they mocked him on the cross.

Really I must have missed your provided sources for how the Jews did in fact not use the word brother to refer to cousins. Please point me to these posts.



It's not a cancellation or an ignoring. Like everyone else is saying, if you know Jewish culture at the time then you will understand that it isn't contradictory.

I expect you to follow the words of Paul who tells us to follow the traditions and church authorities. The ever virginity has been since the first century and has been passed down by the elders we are commanded by an apostle to obey. You can pick and choose which Scriptures to follow all you want, but to listen to Paul is to follow Apostolic tradition.

Click to expand...

No youve ben "told" by a church systen that started 120 odd years After the apostles.
When we follow pauls words we follow the foundations of the apistles and prophets...
Niether of whom said Any such thing as what the msn made institution began to say a centure + later.

You see the very fact you have to fall on " YOUR " churches tradition. ..which begane well over a century after the apostles is because there is NO direct unambiguoius Scripture to base it on
The apostles never once said Any of it.nor did the prophets of Old that God sent.
So to follow thier foundations we cannot adhere to what "your" church said.