Mary's Infidelity

[WebersHome]

.
● Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

Both parents had been commanded to give the boy the name Jesus.

● Matt 1:21 . .She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus

● Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all about everybody. So it was probably common knowledge that Mary's baby wasn't Joseph's, viz: they knew Joseph was marrying a girl whose baby was, from all appearances, illegitimate; and there was no plausible way for Joseph and Mary to prove otherwise. In point of fact, I'd not be surprised that the rumor mill was confident the baby was Joseph's, especially seeing as how he stood with its mother for the naming.

The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's parents were humiliated by this business, but it's likely they were.
_

 

[Tradidi]

..

As a Catholic I take offence to anyone insulting the Mother of God by using a lie as the title of a topic. At least you could have added the word 'alleged' or a question mark. The Mother of God was never unfaithful!

 

[Junia]

The OP cpuld at least have put infidelity in inverted commas or maybe said Mary's supposed infidelity?

 

[fwGod]

.
● Matt 1:18-19 . . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly.

FAQ: Why didn't Joseph proceed to have his betrothed stoned for sleeping around?

Mary said that she had not known a man. That means that she had not been sleeping around.

At the time that he found out that she was pregnant, he only assumed that she had been unfaithful. It wasn't until he'd had a dream where the angel told him that Mary was the virgin of prophecy that would give birth to the Messiah. So he didn't divorce her. But married her to legitimize her to the public and avoid scandal because he loved her.

A: The covenant law that Moses' people agreed upon with God in the Old Testament requires the testimony of a minimum of two witnesses for the prosecution in capital cases.

Mary's own words, the words of the angel, and the scripture itself is three witnesses.

● Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Sans witnesses even Joseph himself became a suspect; in point of fact, the prime suspect.

Neither was Joseph suspect in sleeping with her before they were married. The scripture says that only after she gave birth to Jesus did they enjoy the consummation of their marriage.

» Compare the woman allegedly taken in adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus let the woman go because there was no one willing to testify against her. And even had he known by omniscience that the woman was guilty, the Lord couldn't testify against her because he wasn't a legitimate witness; besides, he would've been the only one.
_

He didn't punish her because he knew that the men had brought her to him as a test of him.. which means they'd known full well that she was engaging in adultery on a regular basis.. they had to know where she was.. and besides, where's the man who'd be equally at fault? So, they did nothing then so why should Jesus be made to do anything about it?

But what he did do concerning her adultery was forgive her. Because just throwing stones at her in punishment does nothing to offer her changing her lifestyle and behavior.
Was she the woman who came with her very expensive perfume, she first cried tears on his feet then wiped it away with her own very long hair, then she opened the perfume and poured it all on his feet. While none of those in that gathering had even brought him a gift as was customary.

She changed her life and became one of the many women who virtuously served him with any need that they could offer. Now that's far better for her than her being stoned to death and buried somewhere.. like the unmerciful pharisees thought Jesus should do about it. But to that Jesus said, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone."

They knew their sins, they knew that Jesus knew their sins and could stone them too, so they took the 'out' for them and the woman and walked away.

 

[WebersHome]

.
● Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.

. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

By then, Mary was really showing because she was in her third trimester and the baby was full-term. Artists often portray Jesus' mom riding a donkey, but in her condition, it's far more likely she was transported in a wagon. Artists also typically depict the couple traveling alone to Bethlehem, which is impressionistic rather than realistic. They were far more likely each with their own families because at that time, they were not yet married.

Where it says Joseph went to Bethlehem along with Mary doesn't necessarily indicate they traveled together as a couple. Mary's family was of the house and lineage of David too, so they were all traveling to Bethlehem for the same reason.

● Luke 2:6-7 . . And it came about that while they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son.

Now, the thing is; Jesus was not only conceived out of wedlock, but he was also born out of wedlock too because Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet married when they traveled to Bethlehem. In point of fact, Matt 1:25 says that Joseph avoided Mary until after her baby was born.

● Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

Mary and Joseph were both instructed to give her boy the name Jesus.

● Matt 1:21 . . She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus

● Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all about everybody. So it was probably common knowledge that Joseph was marrying a girl whose baby was, from all appearances, illegitimate; and there was no plausible way for Joseph and Mary to prove otherwise. In point of fact, I'd not be surprised that the rumor mill was confident the baby was Joseph's, especially seeing as how he stood with its mother for the naming; and the community must have really been curious why he didn't marry her sooner; which is typical for shotgun weddings.

(The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's parents were humiliated by this business, but it's likely they were.)

Although some men's paternal feelings are easily roused by any and every child they meet, there isn't a clue as to Joseph's feelings about Mary's infant seeing as it wasn't his own, and I can't help but wonder if maybe Joseph was somewhat grudging about giving it his name-- but of course reluctant or no, he did and so Solomon became one of Jesus' many grandfathers.

● Matt 1:1-16 . .The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David . . and to David was born Solomon . . . and to Solomon . . . was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

The identity of Jesus' biological father was suspicious; but when Joseph stood with Mary to name her baby, from then on the lad became accepted as Joseph's boy.

● Luke 2:27-28 . . When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying . . .

● Luke 2:41 . . Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.

● Luke 2:48 . . His mother said to Him, "Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for you."

● Matt 13:55 . . Is not this the carpenter's son?

Jesus was ordained of God to inherit David's throne (Luke 1:32). Now the thing is; David's throne has never been passed down to one of his sons via a mother; it's always been passed down via the fathers in his line.

For another; the throne has to come down via David's son Solomon (1Kings 1:13, and 1Chron 22:9-10). Joseph is related to Solomon (Matt 1:6 and Matt 1:16).

Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to adopt Mary's boy in order to get the lad into Solomon's genealogy and thus qualify as a rightful heir to the throne promised him during the angel's visit with his mother. (Luke 1:31-33)
_

 

[FenderTL5]

As a Catholic I take offence to anyone insulting the Mother of God by using a lie as the title of a topic. At least you could have added the word 'alleged' or a question mark. The Mother of God was never unfaithful!

I grew up in a KJV only, anti-Catholic, evangelical tradition.
Seeing this kind of discussion (thread title) now is frustrating. It's not as-if this hasn't been addressed historically in the Tradition of the Church.

 

[WebersHome]

.

I grew up in a KJV only, anti-Catholic, evangelical tradition.

I didn't set this thread up for testimonies, they're off-topic; but what the hay; maybe it's time for an intermission.

I was christened an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944, and eventually attended catechism to complete First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My siblings are Catholic, my mother was Catholic, my eldest brother entered the priesthood and made it to Friar before succumbing to cancer a few years ago. My wife is a former Catholic, her dad was Catholic, his wife was Catholic, my aunt and uncle were Catholics, and my wife's cousins are Catholic; one of them is qualified to teach Catechism.

I was loyal to Rome for the first 24 years of my life till one day in Feb 1968 I was approached by a Conservative Baptist minister who asked me if I was prepared for Christ's return.

Well; I must've been either asleep or absent the day that the nuns talked about Jesus coming back because that man's question was the very first time in my whole life that I can remember somebody telling me.

My initial reaction was alarm because I instinctively knew that were I called on the carpet for a face-to-face with Jesus, it would not go well for me because I had a lot to answer for. Well; I don't like being made to feel afraid so I became indignant and demanded to know why Jesus would come back. That's when I found out for the very first time that it was in the plan for Christ to take over the world.

Then the minister asked me if I was going to heaven. Well; of course I had no clue because Catholics honestly don't know what to expect when they pass away. I was crossing my fingers while in the back of my mind dreading the worst.

Then the man said; "Don't you know that Jesus died for your sins?"

Well; I had been taught in catechism that Jesus died for the sins of the world; that much I knew; but honestly believed all along that he had been an unfortunate victim of circumstances beyond his control. It was a shock to discover that Jesus' trip to cross was deliberate, and that his Father was thinking of me when His son passed away, viz: my sins were among the sins of the world that Jesus took to the cross with him.

At that very instant-- scarcely a nanosecond --something took over in my mind as I fully realized, to my great relief, that heaven was no longer out of reach, rather, well within my grasp!

That was an amazing experience. In just the two or three minutes of conversation with that Baptist minister, I obtained an understanding of Jesus' crucifixion that many tedious years of RCC catechism classes had somehow failed to get across. Consequently, my confidence in the Roman Catholic Church was shattered like a bar of peanut brittle candy dropped on the sidewalk from the tippy top of the Chrysler building.

Long story short; I eventually went with that man to his church and, along with him and a couple of elders, knelt at the rail down front and prayed a really simple, naive prayer that went something like this;

"God, I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's death"

My prayer wasn't much to brag about; but it was the smartest sixteen words I'd ever spoken up to that time.

● Matt 10:32 . .Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
_

 

[Hermit76]

Mary said that she had not known a man. That means that she had not been sleeping around.

At the time that he found out that she was pregnant, he only assumed that she had been unfaithful. It wasn't until he'd had a dream where the angel told him that Mary was the virgin of prophecy that would give birth to the Messiah. So he didn't divorce her. But married her to legitimize her to the public and avoid scandal because he loved her.
Mary's own words, the words of the angel, and the scripture itself is three witnesses.
Neither was Joseph suspect in sleeping with her before they were married. The scripture says that only after she gave birth to Jesus did they enjoy the consummation of their marriage.
He didn't punish her because he knew that the men had brought her to him as a test of him.. which means they'd known full well that she was engaging in adultery on a regular basis.. they had to know where she was.. and besides, where's the man who'd be equally at fault? So, they did nothing then so why should Jesus be made to do anything about it?

But what he did do concerning her adultery was forgive her. Because just throwing stones at her in punishment does nothing to offer her changing her lifestyle and behavior.
Was she the woman who came with her very expensive perfume, she first cried tears on his feet then wiped it away with her own very long hair, then she opened the perfume and poured it all on his feet. While none of those in that gathering had even brought him a gift as was customary.

She changed her life and became one of the many women who virtuously served him with any need that they could offer. Now that's far better for her than her being stoned to death and buried somewhere.. like the unmerciful pharisees thought Jesus should do about it. But to that Jesus said, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone."

They knew their sins, they knew that Jesus knew their sins and could stone them too, so they took the 'out' for them and the woman and walked away.

Where does it say they consummated the marriage?

 

[The Liturgist]

As a Catholic I take offence to anyone insulting the Mother of God by using a lie as the title of a topic. At least you could have added the word 'alleged' or a question mark. The Mother of God was never unfaithful!

And as a liturgical Protestant who rejects Nestorianism and accedes to the rulings of the Council of Ephesus, I agree with you entirely. St. Mary is the very Mother of God (to say otherwise is to make the error of Nestorius); she was a perpetual virgin, and all generations call her blessed, as she prophesized in the Magnificat, that most wonderful od the three Evangelical Canticles in the Gospel According to Luke, and the staple of Byzantine Matins, Roman Vespers, and Anglican Evensong.

 

[FenderTL5]

.
I didn't set this thread up for testimonies, they're off-topic..
_

If you want testimony, I'll gladly give it. However, that was only for the purpose of background, that I have not always been Orthodox. It would be easy to see the remainder of my comment in a vacuum of the Traditional Church. My understanding has deepened as I've grown, studied, and read the history and Tradition. The phrasing in the title ignores the history and teachings of the Church and is borderline blasphemy imho.

 

[BobRyan]

And as a liturgical Protestant who rejects Nestorianism and accedes to the rulings of the Council of Ephesus, I agree with you entirely. St. Mary is the very Mother of God (to say otherwise is to make the error of Nestorius); she was a perpetual virgin, .

Would be nice if some of that were in the Bible.

By the way - what is up with that flag - it looks like it was run through some hard times

 

[BobRyan]

Where does it say they consummated the marriage?

Quite a few married people mentioned in the Bible without the obligatory "and they consumated their marriage" comment after each case.

Matt 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Not followed by "oops! I meant to write.. until the day he died"

 

[Hermit76]

Quite a few married people mentioned in the Bible without the obligatory "and they consumated their marriage" comment after each case.

Matt 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Not followed by "oops! I meant to write.. until the day he died"

A very witty response but incorrect.

The word that your translation, and your point, hinges on is the Greek ἕως (heōs). It is often translated "to" in an indication that the state of the subject continues unchanged. An example in English could be, "My ancestors settled this land in 1792 and it has remained in the family to this day."
A better example rests in Matthew 28:20 which says:

διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

Is this important? Well, if it is to be translated and interpreted as you desire, then we have a problem.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It seems at the end of the world Christ will abandon us!

You and I both know this is untrue. The Mother of God, the Theotokos, was a virgin til (ἕως) the birth of Christ and remains a virgin to
(ἕως) this day.

This is the witness of The Church throughout history.

 

[WebersHome]

.
Continuing from post No.27

● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short: Moses' people became weary of eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; God sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion a resemblance of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from snakebite could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the image of the serpents was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The likeness was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.

As an allegory, Moses' serpent indicates that Christ's crucifixion for the sins of the world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion as the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears, are already on the docket to face it.

● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

» His son's "name" in this case is relative to Moses' serpent.
_

 

[BobRyan]

Where does it say they consummated the marriage?

Quite a few married people mentioned in the Bible without the obligatory "and they consumated their marriage" comment after each case.

Matt 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Not followed by "oops! I meant to write.. until the day he died"

A very witty response

thanks - nice of you to notice

but incorrect.

ok maybe I should have said "but not followed by ---"oops! I meant to write.. until the day he died" -- in the Bible that I have " ??

The word that your translation, and your point, hinges on is the Greek ἕως (heōs). It is often translated "to" in an indication that the state of the subject continues unchanged. An example in English could be, "My ancestors settled this land in 1792 and it has remained in the family to this day."

That only works of Matthew was an on-the-scene reporter - writing in real time just at the moment Jesus was born - and then sending off his news-flash report to the paper to have it published hot off the press. Then he could write "until this very moment as Mary is giving birth to Jesus" -- sort of like you appear to suggest.

A better example rests in Matthew 28:20 which says:
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

1. Which is not a statement about Joseph or Mary or the virginity of Mary.
2. Even to the birth of Christ -- would be a killer even for Matthew 28 "behold I am with you always - even to the birth of Christ".

Is this important? Well, if it is to be translated and interpreted as you desire, then we have a problem.

(Spoken as if I wrote the book of Matthew... how... interesting...)

Matt 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

I guess it depends on who "we" are -- so far the reading of the text seems to work just fine for me and one or two other folks I know.

You and I both know this is untrue. The Mother of God, the Theotokos, was a virgin til (ἕως) the birth of Christ and remains a virgin to
(ἕως) this day.

I assume you "quoted you" just then... or where you just suggesting that we add that text to the end of Matthew?

 

[fwGod]

Where does it say they consummated the marriage?

The Bible is not always so obliging in giving answers to every question. For the consummation would be their private concern.

These indicate that they had not consummated the marriage yet. Matthew 1:18 before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The following is the verse I referred to in my previous post.

Neither was Joseph suspect in sleeping with her before they were married. The scripture says that only after she gave birth to Jesus did they enjoy the consummation of their marriage.

Matthew 1:25 Joseph knew her not (didn't have marital relations) until she gave birth to a son.

The following implies that they had consummated the marriage anytime after the birth of Jesus by means of resulting offspring. Matthew 12:46. Matthew 13:55. Mark 6:3. John 2:12. John 7:3. John 7:5. John 7:10. Acts of the Apostles 1:14. 1 Corinthians 9:5. Galatians 1:19.

 

[The Liturgist]

Where does it say they consummated the marriage?

It doesn’t, but people will insist that the marriage was consummated all while claiming to follow the tenets of Sola Scriptura, despite the fact that John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley all expressed a belief in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.

I have heard this Neo-Antidicomarianism started with some of the Anabaptist sects, but I have not personally had a chance to verify its origins.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Bible is not always so obliging in giving answers to every question. For the consummation would be their private concern.

These indicate that they had not consummated the marriage yet. Matthew 1:18 before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The following is the verse I referred to in my previous post.
Matthew 1:25 Joseph knew her not (didn't have marital relations) until she gave birth to a son.

The following implies that they had consummated the marriage anytime after the birth of Jesus by means of resulting offspring. Matthew 12:46. Matthew 13:55. Mark 6:3. John 2:12. John 7:3. John 7:5. John 7:10. Acts of the Apostles 1:14. 1 Corinthians 9:5. Galatians 1:19.

Wrong - those were Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. He was known to be a widower when he was betrothed to the Mother of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

The scripture says that only after she gave birth to Jesus did they enjoy the consummation of their marriage.

Nowhere does it say that...

 

[The Liturgist]

Quite a few married people mentioned in the Bible without the obligatory "and they consumated their marriage" comment after each case.

Matt 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Not followed by "oops! I meant to write.. until the day he died"




thanks - nice of you to notice



ok maybe I should have said "but not followed by ---"oops! I meant to write.. until the day he died" -- in the Bible that I have " ??




That only works of Matthew was an on-the-scene reporter - writing in real time just at the moment Jesus was born - and then sending off his news-flash report to the paper to have it published hot off the press. Then he could write "until this very moment as Mary is giving birth to Jesus" -- sort of like you appear to suggest.





1. Which is not a statement about Joseph or Mary or the virginity of Mary.
2. Even to the birth of Christ -- would be a killer even for Matthew 28 "behold I am with you always - even to the birth of Christ".



(Spoken as if I wrote the book of Matthew... how... interesting...)

Matt 1:25
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

I guess it depends on who "we" are -- so far the reading of the text seems to work just fine for me and one or two other folks I know.



I assume you "quoted you" just then... or where you just suggesting that we add that text to the end of Matthew?

I would suggest we defer to the combined wisdom of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Cranmer and the early church fathers, most especially the illustrious archbishop of Alexandria, Pope St. Athanasius, who defined the 27 book New Testament Canon (without him, your New Testament would very probably have 1 Clement, 1 Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and would lack Revelations, Jude, 2 John, 3 John, Philemon, Titus, Hebrews, and 2 Timothy), and his illustrious successor Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, who defeated Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople and the flawed Nestorian Christology.