ages of Mary and Joseph?

[Thekla]

She most certainly WAS married and had other sons and daughters! But my point is that this is NOT what the Gospels are about! WHO CARES!!!

The point is that Christ came to this world to save us! WHO CARES about Mary and Joseph and saint this and that what relevance does it have on our eternal souls or destiny?????? What purpose does this serve?

I certainly agree that our central focus should be on Christ !
I must disagree on the insistence that Mary had other children; I do not intend to make you think one way or the other, but to point out that your conclusion that she did is not Biblically supported in the original Greek. At least some translations, perhaps assuming that she did, translate the passages in question in such a manner that the conclusion seems to be supported where in fact it is not.

 

[Uphill Battle]

At the risk of dragging other threads into this one, there is no Biblical evidence that they married (the word for married and betrothed is the same word in Greek) nor that they had "other" children (the word adelphos has then and now about more than half a dozen meanings). In short, the Biblical record supports neither view as there is no explicit evidence in the Bible. The EO, OO and RC support their view Biblically using statements from the Bible that rely on (in part) grammatical "analysis" and parallels between Lukan passages and OT passages.

Past this, it is my view that if we claim to rely on explicit Biblical evidence, then we should do so. There is none to support the view that they definitely married and had other children, nor that they didn't.

you and I have been down this road before.

nothing has changed. You still say there is no evidence.

It's putting blinders on for the sake of a held truth.

Fill in the blank. 1,2,3, __ 5,6.... did you think 4?

fill in the blank. Betrothed. Joseph wonders if he shouldn't Marry her. Angel says to marry her. ______________ And Joseph takes her as his "woman." (some of you argue this doesn't mean that he took her as a wife, of course. Have to maintian the charade all the way through.)

it's really not a Mensa level problem to solve.

If one is interested in delving further into the Biblical evidence, the giving of Mary to John at the crucifixion is a cultural acknowledgement that Mary had no other sons.

this line of thinking has been refuted before (albeit never accepted by those who desperately need it to mean what they say it does.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

Knock it off everybody. They were both teenagers, or young adults. Mary was a virgin who was told by the angel that she would bear a Son by the power of the Holy Spirit (praise God!) . We know who this Child is. The Messiah, the only ONE Redeemer. Joseph was NOT a rickety old man. He was her fiancé and he could take care of her. The only reason he's not mentioned later on in the gospels is becuse he's not Jesus' father. He didn't do anything particularly spectacular, but the catholics and orthodox like to think he did.

They later married and had other children. Some of them actually became believers afterwards. It's all there for you to read in the BIBLE! You see the Bible is all about CHRIST! Not about Mary, Joseph and saint this and that.

I'd disagree, on one point... but only for tendancy reasons, not hard numerical evidence. Joseph would LIKELY be older. Not "rickity old" like you said, but a decade or a bit more older would be absolutely no suprise.

very rare that the man and woman would be the same age, culturally.

 

[Thekla]

you and I have been down this road before.

nothing has changed. You still say there is no evidence.

It's putting blinders on for the sake of a held truth.

Fill in the blank. 1,2,3, __ 5,6.... did you think 4?

fill in the blank. Betrothed. Joseph wonders if he shouldn't Marry her. Angel says to marry her. ______________ And Joseph takes her as his "woman." (some of you argue this doesn't mean that he took her as a wife, of course. Have to maintian the charade all the way through.)

it's really not a Mensa level problem to solve.

this line of thinking has been refuted before (albeit never accepted by those who desperately need it to mean what they say it does.)

I think the accusation of "charade" et al is unnecessary. We disagree. Both of us can find those who disagree and agree with our views; this is not a matter of deliberate subterfuge but of disagreement.

 

[Uphill Battle]

pretending that evidence exists within the pages of scripture does not exist for the marriage of Joseph and Mary, is a charade. Well meaning or otherwise.

 

[Thekla]

pretending that evidence exists within the pages of scripture does not exist for the marriage of Joseph and Mary, is a charade. Well meaning or otherwise.

charaden charade [ʃəˈraːd, (American ) ʃəˈreid]a piece of ridiculous pretence which is so obvious that it does not deceive anyone. charade تَظاهُر هَزَلي مَكْشوف очевидно драматизиране parodie paradenummer die Scharade γελοίο πρόσχημα, παρωδία farsa paroodia تظاهر ناشیانه parodia parodie הַצָגָה प्रहेलिका, पहेली šarada, igra pogađanja „komédia” sandiwara látaleikur, skopstæling sciarada 見えすいた口実 뻔한 변명 akivaizdi apgaulė farss kepura-puraan charade temmelig tynt/lett gjennomskuelig påskudd farsa farsa comedie; mascaradă бессмысленный фарс paródia šarada farsa charad คำปริศนา numara 荒謬的難以騙人的借口 шарада جھوٹا بہانہ ، غلط حیلہ làm ngơ 荒谬的难以骗人的借口

n sg chaˈradesa game in which each syllable of a word, and then the whole word, is acted and the audience has to guess the word.

charade | sh əˈrād|
noun
an absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance : talk of unity was nothing more than a charade.
• ( charades) a game in which players guess a word or phrase from pantomimed clues.




hmmmm, which meaning do you intend, or some other ....

(I'm assuming pretence, but perhaps not ?)

 

[Uphill Battle]

yes. A pretense.

 

[Thekla]

yes. A pretense.

OK. But I'm not pretending.

 

[Uphill Battle]

alright. I just view it that skipping over the logical conclusion, the basic evidence, and assuming that what would be the straightforward answer, IF a belief didn't need to be supported, IS pretending.

It's pretending that the most logical reasoning isn't the most reasonable choice in the first place.

Reading the text about "betrothal/marriage/etc..." and concluding that "well, it COULD mean that they never married, I.E. were always betrothed, so that's what it must mean, because we need to maintain that Mary never climbed in bed with Joseph...."
is specious reasoning.

 

[narnia59]

It's pretending that the most logical reasoning isn't the most reasonable choice in the first place.

The most reasonable choice using the Bible alone is that we simply don't know.

 

[narnia59]

You see the Bible is all about CHRIST! Not about Mary, Joseph and saint this and that.

And it's about all of Christ -- to include his body.

 

[narnia59]

Oh please!!!! Mary was an unwed mother? Do you imagine how she would have been treated? She was married and had other children! The Gospels are about CRHIST! Not Mary and Joseph! They don't matter! Our salvation has no relevance whatsoever on "this saint and that saint" ...fabrications!!!... and we shouldn't even, in these last days, be preoccupied with such petty matters!!!! What petty drivel!!!!

I guess in your view, the eye can indeed say to the hand "I don't need you".

Silly Paul, being preoccupied with such petty drivel as the relationship within the body of Christ during those last days.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The most reasonable choice using the Bible alone is that we simply don't know.

False. We can know. Some of us just refuse to play word games to support a belief we already hold.

 

[narnia59]

False. We can know. Some of us just refuse to play word games to support a belief we already hold.

And some are so set in their tradition they don't even know they're playing them.

 

[Uphill Battle]

what tradition? the tradition of reading the text, and extrapolationg from it what it says, as opposed to making the text fit what you already believe?

I'll follow that "tradition" any time first.

 

[narnia59]

what tradition? the tradition of reading the text, and extrapolationg from it what it says, as opposed to making the text fit what you already believe?

I'll follow that "tradition" any time first.

For some, it's the tradition of applying what one views to the be the "norm" to Scripture and filling in the gaps.

For others, it's the "tradition" that says that whatever the Catholics say about Mary has to be wrong.

Regardless, the only real Bible-alone answer is we don't know, for Scripture does not provide that information. Anything beyond that moves into tradition.

And why feel the need to 'follow' the tradition that Mary had other children in the first place? What value does that bring?

 

[Uphill Battle]

For some, it's the tradition of applying what one views to the be the "norm" to Scripture and filling in the gaps.

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.

For others, it's the "tradition" that says that whatever the Catholics say about Mary has to be wrong.

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.

Regardless, the only real Bible-alone answer is we don't know, for Scripture does not provide that information. Anything beyond that moves into tradition.

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.

And why fill the need to 'follow' the tradition that Mary had other children in the first place? What value does that bring?

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.

 

[Thekla]

Honestly, Uphill, either conclusion may be reasonably deduced but neither is explicitly stated. If one is to rely soley on what is explicitly stated in scripture, the admission of one's views on the matter being a "reasonable opinion" is not shameful.

 

[Thekla]

False. We can know. Some of us just refuse to play word games to support a belief we already hold.

The accusation of word games is unnecessary.

The "Panthera myth" dating to at least the second century and in oral and written circulation (as Targum) through at least the 14th century - especially the version repeated by Celsus, the earliest recorded version that I am aware of - does not mention additional children of Mary, but abandonment by "the carpenter" at around the time of Christ's birth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

other than the relative unreasonability of the conclusion.


Hey, we're getting married!
hmmm.... I wonder if I should Mary her after all.
oh! the Angel says it's alright, go ahead an Marry her!
______________________________________________
we're not married.

it is NOT reasonable.

if you remove the need to have them unmarried, or celibate, it kind of falls to pieces as foolish.