Mary and Joseph

[Jonaitis]

So your church allows babies to commune without being baptized?

Commune in what way? Participating in the table? Present at the preaching and singing?

 

[☦Marius☦]

Commune in what way? Participating in the table? Present at the preaching and singing?

The Eucharist?

 

[Jonaitis]

The Eucharist?

Well, my local church believes in an open-communion (to my disagreement), but we don't have babies participate.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Well, my local church believes in an open-communion (to my disagreement), but we don't have babies participate.

Ah. But I guess from the reformed perspective the Eucharist would not have quite the same meaning as it would to an Orthodox. The primary reason we baptize Babies is so they can commune. Oddly enough after the schism the RCC stopped this practice of letting babies commune, while still baptizing them which I think defeats the entire point.

 

[Jonaitis]

Ah. But I guess from the reformed perspective the Eucharist would not have quite the same meaning as it would to an Orthodox. The primary reason we baptize Babies is so they can commune. Oddly enough after the schism the RCC stopped this practice of letting babies commune, while still baptizing them which I think defeats the entire point.

Well, Reformed understanding of the sacraments are broad and vary in meaning from each denomination and church body, but I am sure the general notion of a sacrament (not a mere ordinance) in the Reformed is pretty different than the Eastern Orthodox as it is to the Roman Catholic. We see the "Eucharist" as a means of grace, but not in the sense that the others view it (including Lutherans). Don't be misled by my religious affiliation on my profile, I am not a Reformed paedobaptist in the general use of the term 'Reformed.' Many of them do make their baptized infants participate in communion, which I think is pretty faulty theology.

 

[chilehed]

So says you.

Me and virtually every other Christian for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

I believe there's better reasoning for holding that sisters and brothers means, you know, sisters and brothers.

You mean other than the fact that the words "brother" or "sister" don't appear in the original texts, I suppose.

 

[ewq1938]

No, it doesn't say that. It says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. As was already pointed out, they could have been children from Joseph's first marriage.

The bible doesn't say he was married before therefore any sisters and brothers that are mentioned are children of Mary.

 

[All4Christ]

I seriously doubt anyone will change anyone else’s mind here. I have a feeling this conversation will go round and round in circles.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Me and virtually every other Christian for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

Source of information please, or are we just dealing with your imagination here.

...the words "brother" or "sister" don't appear in the original texts...

If you mean they don't appear in English, you're correct.

 

[chilehed]

That "until" pretty strongly implies that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph did have normal marital relations -

So you're saying that Michal the daughter of Saul had children after she died? And that we know where Moses was buried?

 

[JICS]

Sorry, I forget where, but I once read about Jesus' parents that at the time they were betrothed Mary was about 14 years old, while Joseph was about 40.

Is this accurate? Is it what church tradition says? Does anyone here find it a little creepy?

More to the question, who can really know God and suspect Him of being or doing anything creepy?

 

[JICS]

Wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.

Wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.

1. Matthew 1:25 clearly states (regarding Joseph) “and he knew her not UNTIL she had brought for her FIRSTBORN son.” I think that says it all right there, but there is more.
2. Mattthew 13:55 and 56 record disputes about the Messiahship of Jesus. Note a) there WAS no New Testament church, per se, yet, and b) these people were not believers. Therefore, this was NOT talking about the use of the word “brethren” in the sense of being of the same faith or from the same church background. Here the verses are: “Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Note also that this context is Jesus’ nuclear family—his aunts and uncles are not mentioned, thus this is not about his cousins.
3. Paul refered back to James in Galatians 1:19, saying “I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. ... The only other
   apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord's brother.”

 

[Strong in Him]

His brothers don't treat Him as such.

That's a matter of interpretation.
The text doesn't say; so we don't know - not that it matters anyway.

He could not have been recognised as a Rabbi at younger than 30.

I am quite sure that as they considered his teachings to be authoritative and unlike those teachers of the law, Mark 1;22, Mark 1:27, they would not have worried too much about his age.
They weren't that bothered when he was 12; just amazed at his teaching.

Anyway, like I said; it doesn't really matter.

 

[Justified112]

Those things are not necessarily synonymous you know? There are in fact things outside of scripture that are true.

The perpetual virginity of Mary isn't true, though.

 

[Justified112]

Yes, one can be made.

Not a good one and not a biblical one.

 

[☦Marius☦]

The perpetual virginity of Mary isn't true, though.

You have no evidence to prove that. At most you can take the english outside of its original Jewish context and say that is what you interpret. But it wouldn't be accurate because it is a proven fact that the Jews would use the terminology "brother" to refer to cousins and half brothers, and "wife" to refer to a betrothed. Sure you can make the argument that it doesn't prove she wasn't his wife either- However Christ giving her into the care of John instead of James, and the witness of thousands of miracle working martyrs and saints that preached that message convince me otherwise. Tell me of one true miracle working person who has denied the ever virginity of the virgin Mary? I've seen a myrr steaming, miracle working Icon of the blessed virgin. Now tell me why would my church which believes in the ever virginity, be subject to constant miracles for 2000 years, many of which are from the direct influence of the visitation and prayers of Mary?

 

[Justified112]

And singing from hymnals is NOT extra biblical theology?

Yes, the perpetual virginity of Mary DOES have a basis in Scripture.

Singing hymns is not extra-biblical, no.

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (Eph 5:19)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Col 3:16)

The perpetual is a false teachig and is not found in the Bible.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Singing hymns is not extra-biblical, no.

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (Eph 5:19)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Col 3:16)

The perpetual is a false teachig and is not found in the Bible.

The Bible that was put together by saints who believed in the ever virginity of Mary? Nothing close to a canon existed until the late 300s AD

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

More to the question, who can really know God and suspect Him of being or doing anything creepy?

If anyone had done something creepy, it wouldn't have been God.

 

[Justified112]

You have no evidence to prove that.

The fact that Jesus had a nuclear family is evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin. The Biblical writers wrote in plain language and I give them credit for knowing what terms like "brothers" and "sisters" mean in familial context. I don't have to engage in a lot theological gymnastics in order to re-interpret the Bible in order to accommodate a false teaching that is nowhere in the Bible.

At most you can take the english outside of its original Jewish context and say that is what you interpret. But it wouldn't be accurate because it is a proven fact that the Jews would use the terminology "brother" to refer to cousins and half brothers, and "wife" to refer to a betrothed.

Yes, but those only happened in special circumstances. It was not done in ordinary parlance, otherwise you would not be able communicate in a coherent manner. There were special circumstances where a given word might be expanded to refer to nephew as a son. That happens in the OT, but you can't make that the rule. Those instances are exceptions.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on YOU, to prove that every instance where Jesus brothers and sisters are references that it doesn't mean what it says, that each of those references are talking about cousins or something else.

Sure you can make the argument that it doesn't prove she wasn't his wife either- However Christ giving her into the care of John instead of James, and the witness of thousands of miracle working martyrs and saints that preached that message convince me otherwise.

Yes, you have to rely on the opinions of fallible men. I rely on the evidence from the infallble, inerrant Scriptures, wholly inspired by God. So my appeal is to a much higher authority.

Tell me of one true miracle working person who has denied the ever virginity of the virgin Mary? I've seen a myrr steaming, miracle working Icon of the blessed virgin. Now tell me why would my church which believes in the ever virginity, be subject to constant miracles for 2000 years, many of which are from the direct influence of the visitation and prayers of Mary?

I don't trust in alleged miracles. I trust the Lord. The fact is that your appeals are always made to stuff outside the Bible and you have to appeal to anything and everything except the Bible. I will put my faith in the unmovable, indisputable rock of Scripture. You can trust in fallible men, if you want.