ages of Mary and Joseph?

[Uphill Battle]

this isn't taking the right vein.

I am NOT accusing the individual who believes that they never married of dishonesty, or deception.

what I AM saying, is that because they already believe what has been forwarded, they are automatically choosing as most "reasonable" and valid the explaination that supports their already formulated belief.

excluding the logical straightforward conclusion, because it is at odds with what they already hold true.

 

[Thekla]

this isn't taking the right vein.

I am NOT accusing the individual who believes that they never married of dishonesty, or deception.

what I AM saying, is that because they already believe what has been forwarded, they are automatically choosing as most "reasonable" and valid the explaination that supports their already formulated belief.

excluding the logical straightforward conclusion, because it is at odds with what they already hold true.

Thank-you, Uphill Battle.

I wasn't raised EO.
I investigated the matter for myself, including the original Greek and the closest contemporary sources I could (for example, Celsus and Targum).
And I prayed.

 

[narnia59]

regarding the betrothal and marriage of Mary, there aren't really any "gaps." there is only a desperate grasping to an outside chance that the author didn't actually mean they were married. Something that they could have imparted very clearly if that was true.

secondly, a "norm" is required. Otherwise, any flight of fancy, or ridiculous assertion could never be dispelled. For instance, the bible doesn't say that Mary did not sprout wings after the birth of Jesus. using the "no norm" method, there is no method to dispel that notion. People would be free to believe that Mary cruised the Middle east at 23,000 feet. It's an absurd example, I'll grant, but it's and absurd methodology.

A "norm" that insists upon itself forces its own standard to be upheld.

And your example is not only absurd, it's not applicable. You're talking about something that would require a miracle -- breaking all laws of science. Hardly the case when two people decide to marry if their ages are quite different. Can you point to where your example has happened before? Are you willing to say that never has a marriage occurred between a young woman and an older man?

Remember "Fiddler on the Roof"? Seems to me the 'tradition' the first daughter fought to break was to have the right to have any choice in who was to be her spouse. Her father had already made her a 'match' -- and it happened to be someone quite older than she was. Her father saw it as a good match because of the financial security it would provide her. A pretty good example of what the "norm" was in times past.

The "norm" that young people fall in love and decide to get married is relatively new you know. The norm in place at the time of Mary and Joseph was that girls father's made the match, provided a dowry (after all, they were passing along property that required upkeep), and what the daughter thought about it wasn't really primary.

which has nothing to do with this. It isn't only Catholics who say they didn't get married. Actually, it's more typically EO. The Catholics more frequently say they WERE married, but remained celibate.

horsefeathers. The Bible-alone answer is that all evidence points to the fact they WERE married. Using the same idea, you could put 1+1=? and pretend that we can't know that the answer is 2.

I thought we were talking about if they were actually married, and their ages.... what if any that has to neccessarily do with other children, escapes me. My wife and I have no children together, but we are most certainly married, and are not celibate.

even if (and although I do think they did, but it's a seperate issue) Mary and Joseph never had kids, that does nothing to prove whether or not they married, or had children.

You are correct in that I've never read anything Catholic that points to a consideration that they were never married. I have read Thekla's discussions regarding that issue with interest, but have no firm opinion one way or the other regarding that.

I have no firm opinion on their ages either. I simply have a firm opinion that one cannot reject the possibility that Joseph could have been much older and previously married based upon Scripture alone.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thank-you, Uphill Battle.

I wasn't raised EO.
I investigated the matter for myself, including the original Greek and the closest contemporary sources I could (for example, Celsus and Targum).
And I prayed.

I remember our discussion on this before. Didn't your father have some part in it? Correct me if my memory is fuzzy.

A "norm" that insists upon itself forces its own standard to be upheld.

rather, a "norm" insists that outside of obvious evidence to the contrary, normal assumptions should be used.

And your example is not only absurd, it's not applicable. You're talking about something that would require a miracle -- breaking all laws of science. Hardly the case when two people decide to marry if their ages are quite different. Can you point to where your example has happened before? Are you willing to say that never has a marriage occurred between a young woman and an older man?

no, of course I'm not saying any such thing. But, if the standard is "the bible doesn't say that they didn't" or "the bible doesn't say that it wasn't" then you could pretty much assume anything you want to. As absurd as my example is, using the method of "well, the bible didn't say that" it COULD have happened, absurd or no.

Remember "Fiddler on the Roof"? Seems to me the 'tradition' the first daughter fought to break was to have the right to have any choice in who was to be her spouse. Her father had already made her a 'match' -- and it happened to be someone quite older than she was. Her father saw it as a good match because of the financial security it would provide her. A pretty good example of what the "norm" was in times past.

how fiddler on the roof applies, is beyond me.

The "norm" that young people fall in love and decide to get married is relatively new you know. The norm in place at the time of Mary and Joseph was that girls father's made the match, provided a dowry (after all, they were passing along property that required upkeep), and what the daughter thought about it wasn't really primary.

perhaps. That still is outside of the "norm" that it would be a doddering old man. Don't forget, that part of the whole "norm" would be that the father would want for her to have children within her union. You know as well as I the stock that Jewish tradition put in having children.

Now, stepping aside from the thrust of the point for a moment, I find it very interesting that you eschew the use of normal assumption when addressing my points, but then insist upon it for making your own.

that's fairly interesting, don't you think?

You are correct in that I've never read anything Catholic that points to a consideration that they were never married. I have read Thekla's discussions regarding that issue with interest, but have no firm opinion one way or the other regarding that.

alrighty then.

I have no firm opinion on their ages either. I simply have a firm opinion that one cannot reject the possibility that Joseph could have been much older and previously married based upon Scripture alone.

not when you have someone whom you believe telling you that that's what it was, at any rate.

 

[christianmomof3]

how fiddler on the roof applies, is beyond me.

ahh, the fiddler on the roof can be applied to anything if you look at it the right way. it is all in the interpretation - isn't everything?

I'm worried. What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

Worms are not good at the Hokey Pokey. They don't have very many "parts" to put in.

 

[Thekla]

I remember our discussion on this before. Didn't your father have some part in it? Correct me if my memory is fuzzy.

Yes, my father believes in the ever-virginity. But "God has no grandchildren" as they say. It was important to me to investigate for myself. I also investigated theories meant to debunk Christianity (Frazer, for example); belief is something that must happen on an individual level.

 

[prodromos]

That still is outside of the "norm" that it would be a doddering old man.

Joseph was anything but doddering. He was a carpenter who still worked at his trade.

Don't forget, that part of the whole "norm" would be that the father would want for her to have children within her union. You know as well as I the stock that Jewish tradition put in having children.

The reason the Hebrews put so much stock in having children was because the Messiah would be born from among them. That prophecy was fulfilled with Christ's birth so certainly for Mary there was no longer any impetus to have other children. In Joseph's case we understand that he already had several children.

John

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes, my father believes in the ever-virginity. But "God has no grandchildren" as they say. It was important to me to investigate for myself. I also investigated theories meant to debunk Christianity (Frazer, for example); belief is something that must happen on an individual level.

right. But you honestly came up with the "they never married" line of thinking prior to being EO?

Joseph was anything but doddering. He was a carpenter who still worked at his trade.

that wasn't REALLY the point.

The reason the Hebrews put so much stock in having children was because the Messiah would be born from among them. That prophecy was fulfilled with Christ's birth so certainly for Mary there was no longer any impetus to have other children. In Joseph's case we understand that he already had several children.

John

um.... it's the attitude of the father that we were talking about. And also, that isn't completely true. Yes, there was the Messiah's birth, but also the mindest of many children being a blessing of God. It's not a one issue reason.

 

[Thekla]

right. But you honestly came up with the "they never married" line of thinking prior to being EO?

No, "before" I found no solid Biblical information that they had married. Note that marriage can sometimes be considered "not married" until consumated.
The latter point depends on the culture's understanding of marriage.

 

[MamaZ]

Scripture tells us that Joseph took Mary to be His wife. He was already engaged.

 

[MamaZ]

Then scripture tells us he kept her a virgin until the birth of Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

So simple but yet some try to twist and add their own beliefs making that truth instead of the scripture being truth.

 

[Thekla]

So simple but yet some try to twist and add their own beliefs making that truth instead of the scripture being truth.

Indeed, this is one of the problems arising from translation - in some translations more than others. It could be remedied in part by providing footnotes, but thus far I have not found this remedy to be adequately utilized.

 

[prodromos]

Scripture tells us that Joseph took Mary to be His wife. He was already engaged.

According you your interpretation, Jesus calls Mary "wife" in John 2:4. It is the same word used as in Matthew 1:24

John

 

[NoDoubt]

You realize all of this is pointless don't you....Do you think that when God judges you He will care about this? All of this useless rambling on and on? He won't!

I'm going to ask you a question..what will you be judged on....IF you make it to the Judgment seat....NOT the Great White Throne, because the Great White Throne means you're going to hell; but the Judgment Seat means you are going before Christ to be acknowledged before Him.

Do you honestly think He will care about all this? No He won't!

 

[prodromos]

You realize all of this is pointless don't you....

Last time I looked, this was still General Theology. Did there ever need to be a point?

John