Mary and Joseph

Mountainmike said:

so her statement indicates an intention of perpetual virginity or it would have been no surprise at all to her!

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.
The statement indicates that she would become pregnant without having been with a man, certainly.
She wondered how that was possible, certainly.
The angel did not say "you will forever remain a virgin and have no further children after this miraculous conception". Not in the text, at all.

Alithis said:

I certainly appreciate your efforts..
We know mary and joseph were married ..did what man and wife do and then had more children .. ( children are a blessing from the lord.. She as a person was blessed)

Its all very plain and obvious truth in scripture.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the fact is that it's NOT plain from Scripture.

"After Jesus was born, Joseph lay with his wife and she became pregnant and had a son, James" - THAT is plain and obvious teaching.
Unfortunately for us, Scripture does not say that. It does about Jacob's children, for example; not with Mary and Joseph.
It's very likely that they did have more, and Jesus' siblings are named - but it is not explicitly stated that Mary had further pregnancies, nor that Joseph was widowed with children.

Alithis said:

Thats Rubbish.

Click to expand...

And also true.
Now reread the verse and my analysis of it.

It cannot make grammatical sense except in context of intended perpetual chastity.

Which is one of another dozen arguments supporting it.

Question: by what authority do you disagree with all the theologians up to reformation including the reformers themselves.

Why do you consider you are right and everybody else is wrong? That is a bold place to be.

Strong in Him said:

I agree with you, but the fact is that it's NOT plain from Scripture.

"After Jesus was born, Joseph lay with his wife and she became pregnant and had a son, James" - THAT is plain and obvious teaching.
Unfortunately for us, Scripture does not say that. It does about Jacob's children, for example; not with Mary and Joseph.
It's very likely that they did have more, and Jesus' siblings are named - but it is not explicitly stated that Mary had further pregnancies, nor that Joseph was widowed with children.

Click to expand...

We all know what " your.mother and brothers " are outside ..means ..

Mountainmike said:

And also true.
Now reread the verse and my analysis of it.

It cannot make grammatical sense except in context of intended perpetual chastity.

Which is one of another dozen arguments supporting it.

Question: by what authority do you disagree with all the theologians up to reformation including the reformers themselves.

Why do you consider you are right and everybody else is wrong? That is a bold place to be.

Click to expand...

I can read the verse... It says what it says .
I read the other verses too
About her being Joseph's wife..they say what they say.
I also read the verses about his "brothers"
They also say what they say....

See i dont have to go playing word games to manipulate it to mean something it doesnt mean .
I can just read what it says

Your analasys wrong . and its not yours .its based on the analasys of people who had ulterior motive

The motive being to elevate mary and worship a created being .

The rest of us .Just want to glorify Jesus
Only and ever for always and NONE other.
There is none other.

Alithis said:

Haha.. But a wife has always been a wife.

Click to expand...

The Greek word "γυναίκα" simply means "woman".

Alithis said:

We all know what " your.mother and brothers " are outside ..means ..

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry; I thought you were only interested in what is written in Scripture.
Not in assuming that a phrase means what you think it means.

Like I said, I happen to agree with you. But the fact remains that it COULD have been Jesus' step brothers and sisters; i.e Joseph's children.
Scripture does not say how old Joseph was, whether he was married before and whether he had children.

Alithis said:

Haha.. But a wife has always been a wife.

Click to expand...

So? That doesn't change the fact that a step-brother was simply considered a brother at the time.

Your just playing words games because the simple truth does not match a preferred denominational theology aimed at genersting a created being.

Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. If you have read the thread you know that my denomination doesn't believe that Mary was an eternal virgin.

..take it up God
Its him we answer to... Not me

Click to expand...

When did I say that I answer to you?

The verse is meaningless unless Mary expected perpetual chastity, and you cannot twist it otherwise.

But your problem is sola scriptura and the belief that you alone can interpret scripture contrary to not only the reformers but every theologian prior to them.

Sola scriptura is easily demonstrated false by logic history and tradition.

Being your own pope is a bold place to be.

Alithis said:

I can read the verse... It says what it says .
I read the other verses too
About her being Joseph's wife..they say what they say.
I also read the verses about his "brothers"
They also say what they say....

See i dont have to go playing word games to manipulate it to mean something it doesnt mean .
I can just read what it says

Your analasys wrong . and its not yours .its based on the analasys of people who had ulterior motive

The motive being to elevate mary and worship a created being .

The rest of us .Just want to glorify Jesus
Only and ever for always and NONE other.
There is none other.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

The verse is meaningless unless Mary expected perpetual chastity, and you cannot twist it otherwise.

But your problem is sola scriptura and the belief that you alone can interpret scripture contrary to not only the reformers but every theologian prior to them.

Sola scriptura is easily demonstrated false by logic history and tradition.

Being your own pope is a bold place to be.

Click to expand...

Lol rubbish .
The pope is not in scripture either.
And as i said ..i read the text
A child can understand it.
And except we become as litte children we will not see the kingdom of God.

To know the truth in these matters just look to the motive.
The motive behind this topic is to glorify a created being. Namely mary.
I will not do that.
I do not seek to glorify any but JESUS.

Archivist said:

So? That doesn't change the fact that a step-brother was simply considered a brother at the time.



Not sure what your point is. If you have read the thread you know that my denomination doesn't believe that Mary was an eternal virgin.



When did I say that I answer to you?

Click to expand...

So take Your arguments defending the glorification of a created being named mary to God.
Dont bother me with them.
They dont match the scripture nor do the glorify JESUS the ONLY lord And ONLY head of His body. There is None other.

Alithis said:

So take Your arguments defending the glorification of a created being named mary to God.
Dont bother me with them.
They dont match the scripture nor do the glorify JESUS the ONLY lord And ONLY head of His body. There is None other.

Click to expand...

I have made no such argument. In post 229 I specifically said that as a Lutheran I do no believe that Mary was sinless, nor do I believe that she was necessarily a perpetual virgin. Try reading what I actually wrote. If you are going to attribute false statements to me then this conversation is over. I’m sure that you won’t admit that you are wrong and apologize.

Archivist said:

I have made no such argument. In post 229 I specifically said that as a Lutheran I do no believe that Mary was sinless, nor do I believe that she was necessarily a perpetual virgin. Try reading what I actually wrote. If you are going to attribute false statements to me then this conversation is over. I’m sure that you won’t admit that you are wrong and apologize.

Click to expand...

I Did read
Your defending the premise of mary not having more children.(by saying brothers doesnt mean brothers )
And yes i know your lutheren you've repeatedly stated it like a mantra as if it holds sime kind if weight.- it doesn't.
I also know what Lutherans believe... All the mary "mother of god " stuff .. That's just blasphemy in my eyes.
So the little defence that they dont hold to mary being a perpetual virgin doesmt mean a hill of beans to me.
I not a mary worshipper.
I Adhere to Jesus Alone as lord and will glorify none other.

And the infant book of james is in opposition to all other scripture.
To return to the topic of the thread the bible doesnt state mary and josephs age.

.. See ya.

Strong in Him said:

Oh, I'm sorry; I thought you were only interested in what is written in Scripture.
Not in assuming that a phrase means what you think it means.

Like I said, I happen to agree with you. But the fact remains that it COULD have been Jesus' step brothers and sisters; i.e Joseph's children.
Scripture does not say how old Joseph was, whether he was married before and whether he had children.

Click to expand...

Scripture doesnt say because its a fairytale.
The infant book of janes says it and also states other things that oppose all other scripture.. You want to base things on ambiguous writings that directky oppose all other scripture?
Then your open to believing anything..
Book of mormon mentions JESUS..
Is if true too ... Nope its a fabrication too.

Alithis said:

I Did read
Your defending the premise of mary not having more children.(by saying brothers doesnt mean brothers )
And yes i know your lutheren you've repeatedly stated it like a mantra as if it holds sime kind if weight.- it doesn't.
I also know what Lutherans believe... All the mary "mother of god " stuff .. That's just blasphemy in my eyes.
So the little defence that they dont hold to mary being a perpetual virgin doesmt mean a hill of beans to me.
I not a mary worshipper.
I Adhere to Jesus Alone as lord and will glorify none other.

And the infant book of james is in opposition to all other scripture.
To return to the topic of the thread the bible doesnt state mary and josephs age.

.. See ya.

Click to expand...

Conversation ended. I’m tired of your false statements. You really need to learn your facts before saying such things.

Alithis said:

Scripture doesnt say because its a fairytale.

Click to expand...

No; that's your interpretation.
Joseph probably was older than Mary, COULD have been married before and had a couple of children - it's possible.
Scripture doesn't say whether he was or not - Joseph's marital status is not important in the narrative of Mary's miraculous conception and the nature of the baby they would have. THAT'S what's important; Jesus was a unique child and had a unique conception and birth. Jesus was conceived without the help of a human male - he was the Son of God.
Whether or not the man chosen to be his step-father was widowed or had a child, is irrelevant to who Jesus is, so we're not told.
Because Scripture doesn't say, we are not at liberty to impose our own ideas on the text. We aren't told; it wasn't considered important enough for us to know. My own feeling is that Mary and Joseph went on to have other children, just as any normal married couple would, but that's a guess too.

That's all I'm saying - we can't read into Scripture.
Brothers and sisters or step brothers and sisters; it doesn't detract from who Jesus was.

We did read scripture. Billions of us.
And most of us, indeed all before the reformation and ALL the reformationists luther, zwingli and calvin come to the opposite conclusion.

You are in a very lonely place.

Sola scriptura is false, as even cursory studies of early church history prove.

And when you say "the pope is not in scripture" what you actually mean is in your (personal only) interpretation of scripture the pope is not there. But he is clearly there in everyone elses interpretation for a millenium: indeed all the ancient churches and councils give him and occasionally state his primacy. They disagree on the nature and extent , but not the fact.

So if you ever try your mind experiment - and actually asked a child what this means "you are Peter (rock) , and on this rock I build my church, to you I give the keys of the kingdom(referring back to Isaiah)
Ifyou ask any child who has the keys, or who is the rock. THey will say peter. I know , I did so.
Just as a child will tell you the woman of revelations 12 is Mary.
So Matthew 11:25 describes those who turn exegetical cartwheels to avoid the blindingly obvious:
“I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

There are Protestants groups believe in opposites on every material doctrine from baptism, eucharist, clergy, sacramnets, nature of God , remarriage....the list is endless. Precisely because they all claim that they alone are right in reading of scripture, even though they DISAGREE in many cases with those taught by the apostles, and with those who chose the canon you call the new testament. Thats why there are thousands of belief sets. Only one of them is right. And continuous from early church.

I will leave you with two bible verses "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God (which means physical church in the OT)" and "stay true to tradition we taught you" (greek paradosis which means the faith handed down).

There are three legs on the table of doctrine.
Tradition, Scripture and Authority (the power to bind and loose)
Remove any one of them, and the table falls over and all start to disagree.
But truth is unique, so if sola scriptura is right, why do you all disagree?

May the Lord be with you.

Alithis said:

Lol rubbish .
The pope is not in scripture either.
And as i said ..i read the text
A child can understand it.
And except we become as litte children we will not see the kingdom of God.

To know the truth in these matters just look to the motive.
The motive behind this topic is to glorify a created being. Namely mary.
I will not do that.
I do not seek to glorify any but JESUS.

Click to expand...

Strong in Him said:

No; that's your interpretation.
Joseph probably was older than Mary, COULD have been married before and had a couple of children - it's possible.
Scripture doesn't say whether he was or not - Joseph's marital status is not important in the narrative of Mary's miraculous conception and the nature of the baby they would have. THAT'S what's important; Jesus was a unique child and had a unique conception and birth. Jesus was conceived without the help of a human male - he was the Son of God.
Whether or not the man chosen to be his step-father was widowed or had a child, is irrelevant to who Jesus is, so we're not told.
Because Scripture doesn't say, we are not at liberty to impose our own ideas on the text. We aren't told; it wasn't considered important enough for us to know. My own feeling is that Mary and Joseph went on to have other children, just as any normal married couple would, but that's a guess too.

That's all I'm saying - we can't read into Scripture.
Brothers and sisters or step brothers and sisters; it doesn't detract from who Jesus was.

Click to expand...

You often pull out the interpretation card.but nope.
One does not need to interpret plain basic information.
One just reads it . its not rocket science.

But in these cases Motive is the real issue.
Why do they want us to incorrectly believe mary was a perpetual virgin by saying they were not actual bloid brother and marys children.. ( which considering the age of James( of Jewish adult manhood ) is even more unlikly) ...because they seek to elevate and glorify mary.
Simple
So the Motive is idolatrous.

If your wondering why im not replying to any other..well its called the ignore button lol

Thank you for your well-considered responses. I'll address a few of them.

prodromos said:

All Matthew intends to convey is that Jesus' birth was not the result of conjugal relations, and he does so in very concise and efficient use of the language. I don't believe it was ever his intention to relate any information about the private details of Joseph and Mary's relationship since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel.

Click to expand...

The phrase "all that Matthew intends to convey" is an imposition on the text, a reasonable imposition from your standpoint, but an imposition nonetheless. I could use the same phrase: "All that Matthew intends to convey is that Mary and Joseph's normal and natural relations as a man and wife were superceded by this miraculous birth". Both statements fit the text but both entail opposite points of view that are first assumed. I don't believe it was ever Matthew's intent to imply that Mary and Joseph didn't enjoy the normal and natural conjugal rights of a married couple since that too has nothing to do with the Gospel.

prodromos said:

Since they were all grown up and probably older than Mary, there is no reason why they would be mentioned.

Click to expand...

In this you are assuming the consequent. Of course from your view this is a logical reason for their lack of mention. But it is also logical from the perspective that they weren't born yet. There are probably other reasons that could be given as to why they aren't mentioned, for example, that they aren't central to the story at this point in the narrative.

prodromos said:

I don't know how you think this relates. Mary certainly did the will of His Father par excellence.

Click to expand...

Ah, I probably should have explained that one in the list but I was going for brevity. Close familial language is used "mother, sister brother". It seems less impressive of a statement if these are understood as "step brothers". Anticipating your response (that they are legally his brothers) he also refers to "mother", as close a familial connection as one could have.

Honestly, I don't really have a problem if some are his step-brothers. It still wouldn't establish the perpetual viriginity issue or that all the brothers (and/or sisters Matthew 13:56) were from Joseph. It's an imposition on the text from extra-biblical tradition and later sources. I understand the high commitment to tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic churches. But, as you said, this has nothing to do with the gospel. The fact that Rome (at least, not sure of E.O) has made adherence to Marian dogma a matter of salvation is the main sticking point.

prodromos said:

The early Christians didn't read the Bible in a vacuum, in fact most didn't read it at all, they heard it read to them in the liturgy. The early Christians had a continuity with the community in which Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters lived. They knew them, or they knew people who knew them, so there was never any confusion about these details. It is only when people read the Gospels outside of that context that they come up with the ideas that have been presented. They aren't even reading them in a vacuum, but rather in the context of a post reformation tradition that rejects anything perceived as 'Roman Catholic'.

Click to expand...

Vacuum's aside, the New Testament is silent when it comes to any of the claims of perpetual virginity, step-siblings, and the like. These claims are made on the basis of later authors and councils. I have no issue with anyone who would like to believe these things. The only issue is the elevation of these things to a higher importance than the gospel.

Perhaps as a member of the Eastern Orthodox tradition you can help me understand:

1. Is acceptance of these things about Mary/Joseph/siblings necessary for salvation?
2. Is acceptance of these things necessary for communion with E.O.?
3. Is acceptance of these things vital in some other way I have not outlined?

As to your last sentence, it seems uncharitably condescending to make such a general claim when many, well-informed, educated and Christ-honoring people (many who have read patristic writings) come to a different conclusion than the interpretive bias of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I didn't want to start a separate thread since I'm sure this topic has been done to death, but why are Protestants so adamant on denying Mary's perpetual virginity? I honestly find it completely insulting and offensive as she is one of my own role models for my own decision to remain celibate. Plus church tradition has it pretty firmly established that she remained a virgin and that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Scriptures were Joseph's from a previous marriage.