Mary's Infidelity

[BobRyan]

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"

I would suggest we defer to the combined wisdom of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Cranmer and the early church fathers,

Matthew is one of my favorite early church fathers.

Did those you mention claim that Mathew got it wrong in Matt 1:25? If so, I don't remember that they said such a thing.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Which it mentions right after pointing out that an Angel told Joseph what really happened.

Matt 1:25 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"

 

[WebersHome]

.
It's remarkable the number of people I encounter online who sincerely believe that Joseph shared a life with Jesus' mom with no intention of ever having any children by her. In other words; they actually believe that Joseph was celibate in his own home; and consequently Mary too: a young girl in the prime of life no less. I can't imagine a more dysfunctional marriage than that. (Imagine kids growing up in a home where parents never hug, kiss, or display the slightest feelings of romantic affection for each other.)

Since Mary was already engaged to Joseph prior to Gabriel's announcement; the logical conclusion is that she was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual reasons that Jewish girls wanted a Jewish husband-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish man, and raise a Jewish family.

And since Joseph was already engaged to Mary prior to the dream sequence, the logical conclusion is that he was marrying a Jewish girl for the usual reasons that Jewish guys wanted a Jewish wife-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish woman, and raise a Jewish family.

Since the inspired Gospel narratives do not clearly, and without ambiguity, indicate otherwise, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of human experience, that Joseph and Mary fully intended to sleep together after their wedding just like every other normal Jewish couple did back then.

Another point we should address is that in some versions of Christianity, it's a sin to marry with no intent of producing children. That "sin" is based upon a very early blessing in the book of Genesis.

● Gen 1:28 . .God blessed them and said to them; Be fruitful and increase in number

Some folks regard that blessing as a commandment instead of empowerment. Therefore, had Mary and Joseph made no attempt whatsoever to produce children together, then they would've been guilty of disobeying that which some folks regard as a divine fiat. It gets worse.

The Bible's God tempts no man to sin (Jas 1:13). So if He had directed Mary and Joseph into a celibate, platonic marriage-- thus forcing them to disobey His early fiat --then according to some people's thinking; God would have been guilty of leading Jesus' parents into sin.

A serious ethnical point that should be noted is that Joseph and his wife were both Abraham's posterity. God early-on blessed their ancestor with this remark:

● Gen 22:17 . . In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore.

Had Joseph not attempted to produce children of his own with his wife, he would have failed to participate in Abraham's blessing and do his part in perpetuating his ancestor's seed. In other words: it was Joseph's sacred privilege, and his sacred duty, to make an honest attempt to have children with Jesus' mom.
_

 

[fwGod]

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.

You have no scripture whatsoever to support that. It's just one made up thing (Mary's perpetual virginity) stacked on top of another (Mary stayed virginal, Joseph never was allowed to have his conjugal rights with her).
The scripture states (the apostle Paul taught) that there are times to refrain from marital intimacy but points out that the m.i. needs to be taken up again to avoid the devil's temptation of sin.. no doubt by seeking adultery when the marriage doesn't provide conjugal rights.

Joseph and Mary lived in the Judaic culture that marriage means intercourse and having children. While Catholic doctrine circumvents it in order to exalt their own theology concerning Mary.

God's Word clearly states that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage vows sometime after Jesus had been born, resulting in several children born to their union.

If you choose not to humble yourself to the Bible on the matter, that's your choice but it's entirely improper to speak as if the Bible actually indicated that Joseph never bedded his wife.

 

[fwGod]

Nowhere does it say that...

I am not making it up, you are dismissing what is plainly stated in the Bible.
Matthew 1:25 Joseph knew her not until she gave birth to a son. The all important word "until" clearly implies that sometime after she gave birth to Jesus, Joseph knew his wife.

 

[fwGod]

Which it mentions right after pointing out that an Angel told Joseph what really happened.

I already posted that. Here it is. I've bolded & italicized, and enlarged it for you.

(Post #24 Sunday at 10:46 PM) 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.

 

[WebersHome]

.

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.

I've read and re-read that part of the story and am unable to find your version of the angel's announcement.

But married her to legitimize her to the public and avoid scandal because he loved her.

That would've been a futile tactic as Mary was full-term in her third trimester when they traveled not yet married to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:1-6)

And besides; in order to legitimatize Mary's baby, Joseph would have to claim the child was his; and that would've been fraud.

NOTE: 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 thing, 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 marry Jesus' mother and adopt her boy in order for the lad to get into Solomon's genealogy and thus qualify as a legitimate heir to the throne.
_

 

[fwGod]

.

I've read and re-read that part of the story and am unable to find your version of the angel's announcement.

I wonder where you were looking then if you couldn't find it.

Notice that it doesn't have my name as if it were my version.

The Bible records in Matthew 1:18-21: "This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.'"

That would've been a futile tactic as Mary was full-term in her third trimester when they traveled not yet married to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:1-6)

Do you really think that God would be the arranger of Mary's great embarrassment of still being unmarried out in public? And Joseph being laughed at by all who'd assume that he isn't even married to a woman that some other man got her pregnant?

Joseph is not that old testament prophet whom God told to marry a harlot. You are making Joseph such a man by your not reading the Bible correctly.

The words espoused-wife does not mean, unmarried, it means that she is his wife the same that he was espoused to.

Do you really think that Joseph, a righteous man that he was, would have anything to do with much less travel with an unmarried pregnant woman? Go to the temple.. Mary say to the officials there that she's unmarried.. Joseph say to the officials there that he is not her husband..?

They traveled in order to be taxed. If they aren't yet married and she's so pregnant then why is she with him? Why would he pay her taxes if they aren't married?

On the way Mary gave birth in the animal stall. After birth is the usual bleeding. When they got to the temple 8 days had gone by, Jesus was circumcised and she gave the offering for bleeding because of having given birth.

If they were not married.. then Jesus would not have been accepted for circumcision. He and Mary and Joseph would have been denied until they made sacrifices for their various sins of her supposed prostitution and Josephs supposed fornication and Jesus the supposed illegitimate child.

Isn't that a wonderful thing that God would put them through according to your version of what took place?

And besides; in order to legitimatize Mary's baby, Joseph would have to claim the child was his; and that would've been fraud.

Why claim the child was his in fraud when he could marry her well before her pregnancy showed and legitimately claim the child his by right of marriage?

Your version requires multiple sinfulness.

God's way is righteous and holy.

NOTE: 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.

All the more reason why Joseph married Mary early in her pregnancy.

But your version argues against a righteous early marriage.

For another thing, 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).

All the more reason why Joseph married Mary early in her pregnancy.

But your version argues against a righteous early marriage.

Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to marry Jesus' mother and adopt her boy in order for the lad to get into Solomon's genealogy and thus qualify as a legitimate heir to the throne.

All the more reason why Joseph married Mary early in her pregnancy.

But your version argues that they traveled while yet unmarried, which is against a righteous early marriage.

 

[BobRyan]

I already posted that. Here it is. I've bolded & italicized, and enlarged it for you.

fwGod said:
(Post #24 Sunday at 10:46 PM) 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.

Refuting the OP statement about infidelity. Joseph learns about the child and is immediately informed by an angel that this is not a case of infidelity.

 

[fwGod]

Refuting the OP statement about infidelity. Joseph learns about the child and is immediately informed by an angel that this is not a case of infidelity.

Since you intend your post to refute the OP, then by all means quote the OP and make your statement without involving my post.

 

[BobRyan]

Since you intend your post to refute the OP, then by all means quote the OP and make your statement without involving my post.

you already did that - I merely point it out

 

[fwGod]

you already did that - I merely point it out

Since I had already pointed it out, I have no idea why you thought that you needed to.

 

[BobRyan]

Since I had already pointed it out, I have no idea why you thought that you needed to.

left as an exercise for the reader

 

[WebersHome]

.
● Matt 1:18 . . When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Webster's defines "betroth" as to give in marriage and/or to promise to marry. The very same Greek word for betroth is employed again to describe their relationship on the road to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:5)

The Greek word translated "came together" means conjoin. I should think that word needs no defining. (Well, maybe for underage children it might need defining.)

Matthew 1:18-24 refers to Joseph and Jesus' mom as husband and wife. But I have it on good authority that it was the custom in those days for couples to be known as someone's husband and/or someone's wife during the engagement period; which could be up to ten or twelve months prior to the actual nuptials.

● Matt 1:19 . . Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly.

Matthew 1:24 is translated in some versions to imply-- in so many words --that Joseph went and got Mary and brought her to his home. But a Greek word for home isn't actually in the manuscript. Apparently "home" in the English text is an arbitrary embellishment. It just says he took her; like this:

"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife"

The Greek word for "took" has a variety of meanings, one of which is to accept. In other words: Matt 1:24 just means that Joseph changed his mind about breaking the engagement and agreed to go through with the wedding; it doesn't mean they started living together.
_

 

[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.

Now, if so that Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet fully married at that point, then why was she traveling to Bethlehem with him; and why would she want to go there anyway; especially in her condition? It's 68 miles one-way as the crow flies; and no doubt quite a few more miles than that via the ancient road systems; which were not paved.

The answer is pretty simple. Mary's family was biologically related to David just as much as Joseph's. In other words; she had to go to Bethlehem for the census. So then what is usually depicted on Xmas cards as a lone couple traveling to Bethlehem was far more likely a joint venture consisting of both families: Joseph's and Mary's.

So; how do I know Mary was biologically related to David? Well; it would be easy to see were the language and grammar of the opening remarks to Jesus' genealogy-- per Luke's gospel --not so controversial. Since that route has been compromised, we'll have to take another.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny; for example:

● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny. But the seed spoken of in Rom 1:1-3 is biological progeny because David's seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

Well; seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left with Mary as the obvious trail of the bloodline to David; and if Mary, then of course her dad too.

Now, there's a rumor going round that one's biological father is the source of one's blood. But if we keep in mind that Eve was constructed of material taken from Adam's body, then we are assured that any child that biologically descends from Eve's body descends from Adam's body too; whether virgin-conceived or normally conceived makes no difference as all human flesh is Adam's flesh regardless of race or gender; and if so, then all human blood regardless of type-- whether A, B, AB, and O, and/or RhD --is Adam's blood regardless of race or gender.

In other words: the only kind of human blood that could possibly be in Jesus' body was Adam's blood because there just simply isn't any other human blood to work with.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.

There's also an ancient prediction in the book of Genesis that biologically relates Jesus to Eve.

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.

Well, if Jesus is Eve's seed, then he's certainly also Adam's; can't get out of that.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
FYI:

● Luke 1:35 . .The angel answered: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

The laws in the Bible regulating the use and abuse of sex pertain only to humans and animals; none that I'm aware of pertain to God.

Also, according to the Bible; where there is no law, there is no breaking the law. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

Therefore; seeing as there is no law forbidding God to impregnate a women that He's not married to, then if and/or whenever He chooses to do so; for Him it's not a sin.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
FAQ: Why was Joseph left out of Jesus' conception? Why couldn't he have been Jesus' biological father?

A: There's a few theories going around out there we might consider.

1• Men are filthy, unsanitary beasts. It's unthinkable that God would permit them to contaminate, and thus violate, the womb that was to bear the Holy Son of God.

» Women's bodies are made of material taken from a man's body (Gen 2:21-23). Mr.Job nailed it when he remarked: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You see; women aren't from Venus after all; they're actually from Mars, same as men.


2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

» Well; whence did Eve get it? She was constructed of material taken from Adam's body; but he tasted the fruit after she was born, so it was too late for him to pass the fallen nature on to her via his genetics.


3• Joseph was left out of Jesus' conception in order to protect him from the curse upon king Jeconiahs' royal posterity (Jer 22:29-30, Matt 1:11).

» That's a very popular theory among quite a few Protestants. However; according to the language and grammar of the curse; its duration was limited to an era when the land of Israel was divided into two kingdoms-- Judah in the south and Samaria in the north --which came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. When Christ takes the reins, the land of Israel will be unified, i.e. it will no longer be Judah in the south and Samaria in the north.

And besides, Jeconiah's royal line and the curse were inseparable. Had the curse been established in perpetuity, then when Jesus was placed in Jeconiah's royal line via his adoption to Joseph, he would've inherited the curse right along with the line; virgin conceived or not would've made no difference.


4• Another theory, which to me seems the best interpretation, is that it was simply God's wishes that Jesus be not only Adam's progeny, but also His own, viz: Son of Man and Son of God, in accord with the angel's announcement. (Luke 1:32-35)
_

 

[coffee4u]

.
● 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?

Since she had not slept around and was still a virgin your question is moot.

 

[WebersHome]

.

2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she obtained a sense of decency. Prior to that, had someone walked up and said; "Hey, put some clothes on; you're indecent." she would've stared at them as if they were a man gone mad.

Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, give her a sense of decency by means of procreation, nor by means of his body parts that God used to construct her.

Since Eve didn't obtain a sense of decency from the chemistry of the fruit, nor via procreation by means of Adam's body parts; then whence?

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it set in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)

In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent-- ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.
_

 

[JSRG]

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

I don't believe the Jews had legal authority to stone someone for that while they were under Roman occupation.