Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Serapha said:Hi there!
It isn't about "reputations" or "blessings", but just simply "truth" that is not influenced by ratings.
I don't want the blessings or the reputations. Thanks you, though, for your kind remarks. ... and back to the posting...
~serapha~
Well, I think that Joseph and Mary's marraige can hardly be called normal.Serapha said:Hi there!
I am jumping in on this question after about 140 responses. I read about half of the responses and never saw the original question answered.
"Did the Jews have no rule like this? Would it really have been considered acceptable for Mary and Joseph to never have sex? Wouldn't that have a serious negative impact on their marriage?"
In first-century Judaism, there were two parts to the marriage ceremony. The first part was the religious ceremony. The second part was the consumation of the marriage. If the marriage was not consumated, it would not be a valid marriage in Jewish tradition. Mary and Joseph were certainly aware of the fact that consumation of the marriage was a necessity for the marriage to be recognized by God.
Either they were married by the law and living as husband and wife before God, or they were living a lie before man.
~serapha~
Col said:Well your thread turned into a bit of a fight pretty quickly, you poor old thing
I think it looks like the answer is " the jury is still out on this one"
Anyway whatever the case, it has little bearing on the fact that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
Bless Ya
Col<><
Good day , SeraphaSerapha said:Hello All,
I want to add another point. According to all the available references in the Bible, it would be evident that Mary and Joseph were living a strict, Jewish life under Hasidic teachings which was the teaching in the synagogue in Nazareth.
The Hasidics were VERY strict to Torah teachings, which would have included the interpretation of Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply" even more so than the Sadducess, Pharasees, or the Essenes.
~serapha~
Is that so? So what do you call it when Protestant Churches have names such as St. Matthew's Lutheran Church and things of that nature? Is that not honoring them?tigersnare said:Problem #1 Protestants dont' see a "St. Joseph", they see Joseph, Mary's Husband, the Carpenter. Therefore they are not going to "honor" him as you do the Catholic "Saints". Don't expect that and perhaps you won't be disappointed.
I am not sure if you are saying it does not prove it alone . . but I will take your response to mean that this verse, by itself, does not prove that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born . .FreeinChrist said:It is not that verse alone that proves it.
Good Day, CaryCary.Melvin said:Well, I think that Joseph and Mary's marraige can hardly be called normal.
I believe that God allowed Joseph to be the husband of Mary to fill the roll of protector of Mary and father figure to Jesus. But I think that was the extent of their marraige. By Mary being the Mother of Jesus, this would make her the spouse of God which was consumated by the Holy Sprit. For Joseph to have relations with Mary would be adutry in the eyes of God and I think Mary and Josheph were smart enough to realise this.
Therese, I believe I made myself clear. You claim that the Protestant view is that this one verse is proof that Mary and Joseph had marital relations. I am familiar with many Protestant views, and have found that they use this as one of the verses that shows they had marital relations after the birth of Christ, like an obedient Jewish couple would. I don't doubt that some may make the claim that it is the only proof needed, but seems that most feel it is one of several verses that back it up.thereselittleflower said:The question I asked was very specific . . if this verse alone proved that they had normal marital relations after Jesus was born in light of scripture passages in which the word "until" (the same Greek word used as in Matt 1:25) is used when the previous condition or state continued after the point in time the word "until" designated. . . ?
So, if I misunderstood your answer (I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of it) please feel free to clarify . .
Hi seraphaSerapha said:Hi there!
I am jumping in on this question after about 140 responses. I read about half of the responses and never saw the original question answered.
"Did the Jews have no rule like this? Would it really have been considered acceptable for Mary and Joseph to never have sex? Wouldn't that have a serious negative impact on their marriage?"
In first-century Judaism, there were two parts to the marriage ceremony. The first part was the religious ceremony. The second part was the consumation of the marriage. If the marriage was not consumated, it would not be a valid marriage in Jewish tradition. Mary and Joseph were certainly aware of the fact that consumation of the marriage was a necessity for the marriage to be recognized by God.
Either they were married by the law and living as husband and wife before God, or they were living a lie before man.
~serapha~
The reason I think this way is because it is based on the apostolic teachings of Catholic Church (which I believe is infalible on such matters).BBAS 64 said:A question if I may let us just say for the sake of this issue we assume that what you think to be the case as wrong.
Joseph was a man. I think that the law against adultry would apply to him.BBAS 64 said:Also your presumptions of how God relates to a commandment given to man for man.
I believe that the effect that Mary's Ever-virginity has is that it further attests to the divinity of Jesus. It would be expected that the holy vessle that carried the Son of God, would not be defiled in such a manner.BBAS 64 said:Explain what is the effect on the life and finished work of Jesus if all your thinking was wrong. Futher more how are we effected today in the 21 st century?
FreeinChrist said:Therese, I believe I made myself clear. You claim that the Protestant view is that this one verse is proof that Mary and Joseph had marital relations. I am familiar with many Protestant views, and have found that they use this as one of the verses that shows they had marital relations after the birth of Christ, like an obedient Jewish couple would. I don't doubt that some may make the claim that it is the only proof needed, but seems that most feel it is one of several verses that back it up.
FreeinChrist said:Mary gave birth to Christ - she was no longer the "vessel" as Catholics put it (which I find a disrespectful term, but that's MHO). There is NO indication in scripture that Joseph and Mary were less than a proper Jewish couple, who followed Jewish Law. NOR is there any reason why God would consider matrimony, which is God-ordained, to be unholy. I don't know about others, but when I got married in a church with the blessings of God, I entered holy matrimony . It is not shameful, or sinful, and is blessed by God.
Miss Shelby said:Is that so? So what do you call it when Protestant Churches have names such as St. Matthew's Lutheran Church and things of that nature? Is that not honoring them?
Michelle
So now you change your original question furthur by stating you were asking for just a 'yes' or 'no', and now accuse me of sidestepping. Nor was my response to in the least ambiguous - you are just tossing out unsupported accusation here, Therese.thereselittleflower said:[/color][/size]
I am looking for a simple answer . . . yes or no . . not "it is one of" . .
I would think that if the answer was "Yes" then you would not hesitate to say "yes' . .
That you do not give a clear "no, it does not prove it by itself" in the absence of a clear "yes, it does" speaks volumes and that silence is in itself an answer . .
Side stepping a request for a clear yes or no answer with one that is ambiguous does not clearly answer a question . .
I am only asking about that one verse, standing by itself, not any other proof you want to use with it . . just that verse . . . I am sad that you keep wanting to expand your answer to address things I am not asking about. . .
Otherwise, I see no further point in trying to understand your position further . .
I see no point in doing so. I am married to a Catholic man. When I was married, there was a Catholic priest and a Baptist minister officiating. I spent much time in discussion about marriage and doctrine, so I understand alot more than you probably think.KennySe said:Would you please consider asking Catholics their position on Holy Matrimony?
(I invite you to OBOB.)
tigersnare,tigersnare said:I'd rather not debate or argue about this. It's totally pointless, I'll walk away feeling right, and so will you. Who won? The enemy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?