Speak lovingly of Mary

[Uphill Battle]

It's the "Poison The Well Card"!:o

yeah. May be easier to accept, if it was used in a manner anything like it SHOULD be.

Poisoning the well is irrelevant? Prove it. The Bible came from oral tradition. The same tradition that EV came from. You will have to do better than just claim it as irrelevant.

ah, not so.

but lets pretend for a minute is IS true... both the scripture and EV came from an oral only tradition.

well then, you'll have to prove how both are neccessarily true.

saying "It's true, because something else like it is true" is an invalid argument.

for instance "an apple came from a tree. An orange came from a tree. Therefore, apples and oranges came from the same tree.

invalid.

So.....You can have Christianity not based on the Bible?

where did I say anything of the sort?

Because if you claim to be bible based then you will have to admit the "source" and the source yeah it is Jewish and it did grew in the Hellenistic world... Those are historical facts or then Jesus was not a historical person a fully human with history, family and tradition, but rather fully Divine without any connection and ties. Your choice to believe the second if you wish

what an incredible leap of reasoning! "You don't believe in the EV, so therefore if you don't, you have to admit the source, which is Jewish, and if you don't believe in the EV, then you're believing Jesus wasn't a historical person....etc...

wow. I don't think I could come up with something like that if I TRIED.

 

[Thekla]

we're being told that "oh, you're biased" and "oh, you can't have seached this out, because you haven't come to the same conclusion." and "oh, it doesnt' matter if there are more than one way of looking at, it MY way MUST be true."

Having read the "adelphos" passage in English only, I don't see why you would question the meaning. But the experience of reading the passage in Greek is much different; Greek readers (and Middle Easterners in general) reading that passage are reading a word that doesn't just mean siblings. It is still in use to mean any number of things, including "folks I grew up with", friends, relatives, etc.This is a fundamental difference.

in short, we're basically being called (in not so many words) idiots. and I know Thekla is NOT intending that, but the whole mindset is "our studies are better than your studies, because it comes to the conclusion that supports what I believe"

As above, why would someone reading the Bible in English even think to question what the relationship "brother" means ? Its not a matter of better.

As for the Lukan passage (the Annunciation), it is normal for this to be "colored" by the understanding of (English) brothers; after all, most people have been exposed to the understanding and teachings before they read.

But if the Lukan passage is left "uncolored" by the "brothers" passage, and further is analyzed for itself, as the response of a particular person, as the events are unfolding, then it begs further investigation. When compared to the experience of the unfolding of the promises of God in the OT, the Lukan passage becomes a stronger support for the PV of Mary.

 

[Philothei]

You did not dispute anything I write...You chose to just go around and about...Because you know that if you do you are disputing the Bible... Your reasoning is vage ...I never said anything about the orange tree be exactly like the apple tree....but truth is...they are both trees...and that is what oral tradition does... it is the same... it brings about oranges or apples but they are both fruit trees... Same mechanisms work on both trees. The same way the EV and Bible do share the same characteristics in "tradition" actually they are fruit of the same tree in that case, as is the Holy Trinity and so forth. Just because you "chose" not to see it that way because of your Proterstant background that does not that is NOT TRUE...cause as said before your tradtiion falls into what? 200 old "tradition" of doubting the EV?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Having read the "adelphos" passage in English only, I don't see why you would question the meaning. But the experience of reading the passage in Greek is much different; Greek readers (and Middle Easterners in general) reading that passage are reading a word that doesn't just mean siblings. It is still in use to mean any number of things, including "folks I grew up with", friends, relatives, etc.This is a fundamental difference.
but I have. And I find the "it must be something other than natural brother" firmly lacking. the "It CAN mean something other than natural brothers, therefore it MUST mean that" is specious and false reasoning. And given other evidence (which you refute even happened) leads me to believe that it is more likely actual brothers.

besides which, the PV believers can't even get their story straight.

oh, it means bretheren... like the apostles.
oh, it means cousins.
oh, it means his half brothers from Joseph's previous marriage.

perhaps if it were consisitant, there may be some reason to think it could be so.

there is no consistancy. Different people use different apologetic lines of thinking to try and prove the same thing.

I find it highly amusing that it can be said (on some peoples part) Dogmatically certain, or (on other peoples part) a held truth, although not a dogma, that the EV is absolutely certainly completely true... but they can come to absolutely no accord on how to explain away the passages in question.

As above, why would someone reading the Bible in English even think to question what the relationship "brother" means ? Its not a matter of better.

I would gather that someone who just picked it up would not. However, that isn't the case here. You're speaking to someone who is aware that there may be different meanings attached to the word... and yet still reject the assertion that it means PV is true.

As for the Lukan passage (the Annunciation), it is normal for this to be "colored" by the understanding of (English) brothers; after all, most people have been exposed to the understanding and teachings before they read.

perhaps. But you don't think the understanding of the teaching is "colored" by the fact that they go to a church that tells them they must believe in the EV?

really now. If you are going to accuse of bias, it's best to look at the bias you hold so dear.

But if the Lukan passage is left "uncolored" by the "brothers" passage, and further is analyzed for itself, as the response of a particular person, as the events are unfolding, then it begs further investigation. When compared to the experience of the unfolding of the promises of God in the OT, the Lukan passage becomes a stronger support for the PV of Mary.

not really. we don't pretend that Mary and Joseph didn't get married.

You did not dispute anything I write...

how can I? I don't understand what you're getting at half the time.

You chose to just go around and about...Because you know that if you do you are disputing the Bible... Your reasoning is vage ...I never said anything about the orange tree be exactly like the apple tree....but truth is...they are both trees...and that is what oral tradition does... it is the same... it brings about oranges or apples but they are both fruit trees... Same mechanisms work on both trees. The same way the EV and Bible do share the same characteristics in "tradition" actually they are fruit of the same tree in that case, as is the Holy Trinity and so forth. Just because you "chose" not to see it that way because of your Proterstant background that does not that is NOT TRUE...cause as said before your tradtiion falls into what? 200 old "tradition" of doubting the EV?

you just demonstrated that you didn't understand the metaphor.



ah well.

and BTW, I do not have a Protestant background.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Go St. Tyndale!

 

[Thekla]

Having read the "adelphos" passage in English only, I don't see why you would question the meaning. But the experience of reading the passage in Greek is much different; Greek readers (and Middle Easterners in general) reading that passage are reading a word that doesn't just mean siblings. It is still in use to mean any number of things, including "folks I grew up with", friends, relatives, etc.This is a fundamental difference.
but I have. And I find the "it must be something other than natural brother" firmly lacking. the "It CAN mean something other than natural brothers, therefore it MUST mean that" is specious and false reasoning. And given other evidence (which you refute even happened) leads me to believe that it is more likely actual brothers.

No, in the ME and Greek adelphos is NOT "it can mean something other than sibling", its "someone I know" (as in "this is my adelphos, Ferris", who was actually his cousin - a friend of mine introducing Ferris who was visiting).

besides which, the PV believers can't even get their story straight.

the doctrine is PV, not who the adelphos were

oh, it means bretheren... like the apostles.
oh, it means cousins.
oh, it means his half brothers from Joseph's previous marriage.

perhaps if it were consisitant, there may be some reason to think it could be so.

nor are the Gospels entirely consistent in deatail, but unanimous in teaching

there is no consistancy. Different people use different apologetic lines of thinking to try and prove the same thing.

the same issue can be shown through several lines of reasoning

I find it highly amusing that it can be said (on some peoples part) Dogmatically certain, or (on other peoples part) a held truth, although not a dogma, that the EV is absolutely certainly completely true... but they can come to absolutely no accord on how to explain away the passages in question.

glad to amuse you

I would gather that someone who just picked it up would not. However, that isn't the case here. You're speaking to someone who is aware that there may be different meanings attached to the word... and yet still reject the assertion that it means PV is true.

from the age of 2, or 3, or whenever you first heard of Mary ?

perhaps. But you don't think the understanding of the teaching is "colored" by the fact that they go to a church that tells them they must believe in the EV?

my Dad is a protestant minister, fluent in Koine, and as I've explained before - he accepts the PV. Part of why I "chased the passages" to see where I stood on the matter for myself.

really now. If you are going to accuse of bias, it's best to look at the bias you hold so dear.

not really. we don't pretend that Mary and Joseph didn't get married.

so you call fact what you have no supporting evidence for ?

 

[Thekla]

P.S. As it turned out, Ferris (mentioned above) was my friend's father's cousin's son. My friend and Ferris, as with many ME extended families, had spent a lot of time together while growing up.

 

[Chesterton]

Go St. Tyndale!

Saint Tyndale. You said a mouthful, LLOJ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

so you call fact what you have no supporting evidence for ?

Just as with you and the doctrine that Mary Had No Sex EVER?




.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, in the ME and Greek adelphos is NOT "it can mean something other than sibling", its "someone I know" (as in "this is my adelphos, Ferris", who was actually his cousin - a friend of mine introducing Ferris who was visiting).

the meaning, Thekla, the meaning. as in, it COULD mean brother, it COULD mean cousin, it COULD mean your friend bubba. We're talking about who the author was referencing. YOU automatically assume it could be ANYthing other than natural brother.

I don't.

the doctrine is PV, not who the adelphos were

no kidding. But it's pretty much the most frequently used apologetic to try and support the PV.

nor are the Gospels entirely consistent in detail, but unanimous in teaching

ah... a red herring! There is no contradiction between any of the passages in the Gospels.

you can only have one, not all three, of the Adelphos apologetics, yet all three are used.

again, if it's something that you can't get the story straight on... makes me wonder how you know it's true.

the same issue can be shown through several lines of reasoning

and two of the three MUST be false. Perhaps all three, but two certainly are. Yet all three "reasonings" are given as a fact by the person who has accepted that as the apologetic that fits for them.

the others, who don't quote it as fact, pretend that it doesn't matter. It's true, and any of these three answers is why.

that is poor apologetic, and weak thinking.

from the age of 2, or 3, or whenever you first heard of Mary ?

no. For the better part of my life I didn't think of Mary at all.

nice try though.

my Dad is a protestant minister, fluent in Koine, and as I've explained before - he accepts the PV.

absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what someone accepts or does not accept. proof of someones belief in something, is not proof that it's true. Just go talk to the flat earth society about that.

Part of why I "chased the passages" to see where I stood on the matter for myself.

yuh huh. here you are talking about "oh, it's because you heard about Mary in a certain way, that's why you can't accept it any other way.

let's look at the evidence you've presented: your dad accepts the PV. And you go to a church that preaches the PV. hmmm....

so you call fact what you have no supporting evidence for ?

sorry, I don't buy that well meaning lie about no evidence that they were married. YOU do.

Just as with you and the doctrine that Mary Had No Sex EVER?




.

touché.

 

[Thekla]

the meaning, Thekla, the meaning. as in, it COULD mean brother, it COULD mean cousin, it COULD mean your friend bubba. We're talking about who the author was referencing. YOU automatically assume it could be ANYthing other than natural brother.

not exactly.
The point is an English reader will most likely assume sibling. A Greek (or Semitically aculterated) reader will likely not.
As for myself, I have concluded not-sibling in relation to other passages (including the OT experience of many).

I don't.

thats fine

no kidding. But it's pretty much the most frequently used apologetic to try and support the PV.

because the most frequent "attack" on the PV is the "brothers" passages.

ah... a red herring! There is no contradiction between any of the passages in the Gospels.

the Gospels as a whole are consistent on the teachings re: the person of Christ. They vary in details (ex. two versions of the Beatitudes, the Thief at the crucifixion, etc). Though I do not consider the variety in details a problem, many do.

you can only have one, not all three, of the Adelphos apologetics, yet all three are used.

I am not sure what you mean, so I'll answer based on what I think you mean: there are three variants for the detail of relationships represented in the group referred to as adelphos. The scriptural evidence for the PV, and the teaching of the PV however remains consistent. In like manner, there are a variety of descriptions for the reason in variance re: the teaching of the Beatitudes. The teaching of the Beatitudes is, however, consistent. Likewise, there are various explanations offered for the inconsistencies berween the Gospels re: the Last Supper. This does not change the fact that most accept the Last Supper as having occured.

again, if it's something that you can't get the story straight on... makes me wonder how you know it's true.

see above

and two of the three MUST be false. Perhaps all three, but two certainly are. Yet all three "reasonings" are given as a fact by the person who has accepted that as the apologetic that fits for them.

which account of the Last Supper do you "go with" ?

the others, who don't quote it as fact, pretend that it doesn't matter. It's true, and any of these three answers is why.

that is poor apologetic, and weak thinking.

or, as with the Last Supper and the Beatitudes, it shows a consistency in belief re: the PV, but a variety of explanations on the less important matters

no. For the better part of my life I didn't think of Mary at all.

nice try though.

it wasn't a "try" at anything; it was a staement attatched to the manner in which aculturation effects the conclusions we accept as "axiomatic" absent resorting to any full investigation

absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what someone accepts or does not accept. proof of someones belief in something, is not proof that it's true. Just go talk to the flat earth society about that.

That was a western problem, not an eastern problem

yuh huh. here you are talking about "oh, it's because you heard about Mary in a certain way, that's why you can't accept it any other way.

nope. I'm saying aculturation creates default understandings. I was raised in an enviornment where we were expected to know our own bias AND investigate it.

let's look at the evidence you've presented: your dad accepts the PV. And you go to a church that preaches the PV. hmmm....

Yes. Though I don't remember ever being taught or talking about it. Actually, it didn't come up until recently; I asked my Dad what his thinking was on the matter. Regardless, it was something I felt compelled to research on my own.

sorry, I don't buy that well meaning lie about no evidence that they were married. YOU do.

Now that you are married, do you refer to your wife as "my fiance" ? When you were engaged, but not yet married, did you refer to her as "my wife" ?
The fact remains, the terminology in Semitic and Greek usage does not distinguish between the two. Thats not a lie. And using the Bible, one can't prove marriage. If one is going to use the Bible as the standard, then one should consistently do so.

touché.

Exactly - if you're going to require a standard from another, require it also of yourself.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Now that you are married, do you refer to your wife as "my fiance" ? When you were engaged, but not yet married, did you refer to her as "my wife" ?

Nah. I just refered to her as "my ole lady" before and after we were married

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't know,... there is something about eating grape leaves & gyros*,... & then there's the whole "Athens VS Spartica" thing to deal with. Hellenism is no frivolous allegation any less than Jewish fable promotion.
Let's keep it real, ladies & gentlemen.

*

 

[Rick Otto]

"Goddess" is how I address my wife.

 

[Uphill Battle]

not exactly.
The point is an English reader will most likely assume sibling. A Greek (or Semitically aculterated) reader will likely not.

a Greek reader MAY not, but to say likely not, is a bit dishonest. YOU don't... others who accept the EV don't... but yes, an English reader would likely assume sibling, and a Greek reader may not.

As for myself, I have concluded not-sibling in relation to other passages (including the OT experience of many).

OT? since when was the OT written in Greek?

because the most frequent "attack" on the PV is the "brothers" passages.

rather, challenge. If a teaching can't stand up to scrutiny, then it shouldn't be a teaching.

the Gospels as a whole are consistent on the teachings re: the person of Christ. They vary in details (ex. two versions of the Beatitudes, the Thief at the crucifixion, etc). Though I do not consider the variety in details a problem, many do.

you're just repeating what was already refuted. There are no contradictions. the three "they aren't real brothers because of this" arguments contradict.

it is not the same.

I am not sure what you mean, so I'll answer based on what I think you mean: there are three variants for the detail of relationships represented in the group referred to as adelphos. The scriptural evidence for the PV, and the teaching of the PV however remains consistent. In like manner, there are a variety of descriptions for the reason in variance re: the teaching of the Beatitudes. The teaching of the Beatitudes is, however, consistent. Likewise, there are various explanations offered for the inconsistencies berween the Gospels re: the Last Supper. This does not change the fact that most accept the Last Supper as having occured.

see above.

which account of the Last Supper do you "go with" ?

I haven't found anything to make me think the "different" accounts are something different at all.

or, as with the Last Supper and the Beatitudes, it shows a consistency in belief re: the PV, but a variety of explanations on the less important matters

no. It shows contradictory explanations of the belief. the contradiction does not exist within scripture.

That was a western problem, not an eastern problem

funny. And skipped the point entirely.

it wasn't a "try" at anything; it was a staement attatched to the manner in which aculturation effects the conclusions we accept as "axiomatic" absent resorting to any full investigation
nope. I'm saying aculturation creates default understandings. I was raised in an enviornment where we were expected to know our own bias AND investigate it.

Yes. Though I don't remember ever being taught or talking about it. Actually, it didn't come up until recently; I asked my Dad what his thinking was on the matter. Regardless, it was something I felt compelled to research on my own.

this is the attitude of which I speak. You've come to a conclusion, and you assume that you are the only one who has researched the matter in any signifigant manner.

this is typical, really. Claiming that you have more "learned" interpretation of the material sets you up to be the authority on the matter, as opposed to the person you are debating on the matter.

Now that you are married, do you refer to your wife as "my fiance" ? When you were engaged, but not yet married, did you refer to her as "my wife" ?
The fact remains, the terminology in Semitic and Greek usage does not distinguish between the two. Thats not a lie. And using the Bible, one can't prove marriage. If one is going to use the Bible as the standard, then one should consistently do so.

you're right. It doesn't. So applying context is necessary.

Engaged to be married. (even more so, betrothed in Jewish culture, which is far more binding than simple engagement that we see today.)
Joseph considers putting her away, Angel says, hey, don't worry, take her for your wife.
Joseph takes Mary for Wife/Fiancé/Woman (the ambiguous term you speak of.)
after which, we find people believing that they were in fact married.

context demands that the passage where Joseph took Mary for his (insert ambiguous term her), he took her for his wife.

Exactly - if you're going to require a standard from another, require it also of yourself.

and I do.

 

[Philothei]

you just demonstrated that you didn't understand the metaphor.



ah well.

and BTW, I do not have a Protestant background.

You keep saying you do not understand me... and all that... What exactly you did not understand? That tradition is the source of the bible or that EV has the same source?

I think you do understand but you just run out of proof for the opposite...

am not sure what you mean, so I'll answer based on what I think you mean: there are three variants for the detail of relationships represented in the group referred to as adelphos. The scriptural evidence for the PV, and the teaching of the PV however remains consistent. In like manner, there are a variety of descriptions for the reason in variance re: the teaching of the Beatitudes. The teaching of the Beatitudes is, however, consistent. Likewise, there are various explanations offered for the inconsistencies berween the Gospels re: the Last Supper. This does not change the fact that most accept the Last Supper as having occured.

here Thekla is very clear about the "inconsistancies" you turn it around that there are not... But from a scholarly textural and historical perspective there are and that again does not mean that the Gospecl is in conflict. .... You confuse one for the other... The bible does have inconsistances but does not have conflict. Thus to say that the EV is not 'recorded' as such in the Bible does not necessarily means that it is not "proven' in it... The same (and I know you do not like to hear it...but was told again and again) applies to the Holy Trinity...as it is present in the bible but is "name" as such is not in the bible. We deduce it from the scripture but it is not "evidenced" as per the exact words as "Trinity" neither is the the theological meaning of it.....


Shall I go and on?

The inconsistancy of the Protestant idea about EV is thus based in the secular idea of the scientific method that declares all beliefs be the RC or EO as invalid. Doing so one truly wonders how far that 'scientific" method intents to go... as far as finding historical evidence for the Bible?? The Text we use today has not come from the time of 1st century Ad... Rather it is a copy from another copy and so forth...Does this validate its authenticity since any kind of tradtion is questionable? do we actually have a writing of the Apostles? You do go on faith alone for establishing the Bible into an authoritative text of christianity... why would you not do the same for the EV of Mary? That is indeed a "mystery" to us.(EO)....and for you to ponder....

 

[Thekla]

a Greek reader MAY not, but to say likely not, is a bit dishonest. YOU don't... others who accept the EV don't... but yes, an English reader would likely assume sibling, and a Greek reader may not.

It is to say, that given the usage of the term in Greek and in Semitic usage, there is no reason to automatically conclude "sibling". I don't think thats dishonest.

OT? since when was the OT written in Greek?

I'm referring to the promises of God (the "shalls") in the OT, and the length of time for the promises to be fulfilled. Given this, I don't find a reason in the Annunciation passages in Luke to think Mary understood the conception of the announced child to be immediate.

rather, challenge. If a teaching can't stand up to scrutiny, then it shouldn't be a teaching.

The teaching is the PV. Its not the same as the descriptions which explain the details, and points to the vagueness of the term adelphos.

you're just repeating what was already refuted. There are no contradictions. the three "they aren't real brothers because of this" arguments contradict.

In reference to the Lukan passage, and acknowledging the vagueness of the term "adelphos", and the giving of Mary to John. A similar instance would be "Mary's sister (adelphi) Mary" in John. Different descriptions of the relationship to Mary may be given, but this doesn't change the teaching that Mary had a sister Mary.

it is not the same.

I am distinguishing between the teaching and the descriptions given about the teaching. They are different issues.

I haven't found anything to make me think the "different" accounts are something different at all.

I am trying to describe the difference between a teaching and ideas derived from a teaching, or responses to a teaching.

no. It shows contradictory explanations of the belief. the contradiction does not exist within scripture.

It seems this conflates the teaching with descriptions about a teaching. The teaching - the belief that is held is the PV. The descriptions that "surround" the teaching/belief, in response to the question of relationship of the adelphos to Christ, is a description, not a belief.

this is the attitude of which I speak. You've come to a conclusion, and you assume that you are the only one who has researched the matter in any signifigant manner.

I am responding in part to the insistence earlier and in other threads that, for example, Joseph and Joses are not the same name in different languages. Or that adelphos was not commonly used to mean other than brother in Greek.

this is typical, really. Claiming that you have more "learned" interpretation of the material sets you up to be the authority on the matter, as opposed to the person you are debating on the matter.

I didn't say that. I was stating that I had spent a great deal of time researching the matter: the use of adelphos in the LXX, the use of adelphos in Greek literature, etc. When I described the useages, the response was typically "doesn't apply", or "isn't so". The same in the matter of the Lukan passage.

Engaged to be married. (even more so, betrothed in Jewish culture, which is far more binding than simple engagement that we see today.)
Joseph considers putting her away, Angel says, hey, don't worry, take her for your wife.
Joseph takes Mary for Wife/Fiancé/Woman (the ambiguous term you speak of.)
after which, we find people believing that they were in fact married.

There is no explicit statement that they married, nor does what people thought mean that they were, and had children.

context demands that the passage where Joseph took Mary for his (insert ambiguous term her), he took her for his wife.

Gabriel hereafter consistently says "the child and His mother" -- which on balance muddies the earlier - vague - passage. Also, if you compare the use of eos/until/ with its use throughout the OT and NT, again, the issue is not so clear.

and I do.

Then nothing can be said absent explicit scriptural statement; where that is not found, no particular position is most consistent.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla;... given the usage of the term in Greek and in Semitic usage, there is no reason to automatically conclude "sibling".

And yet I'm willing to bet that the average Greek & Semite on the street would automaticaly conclude "sibling".

There is no explicit statement that they married, nor does what people thought mean that they were, and had children.

Betrothal, a mutual promise or contract for a future marriage, is an explicit reason for people to think a marriage will take place. That a child is born is an explicit reason for people to think that the marriage did indeed take place. That the child is kept & raised as legitimate is yet another explicit reason to believe a couple are married. There may bew a limit to the importance of what people think, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm referring to the promises of God (the "shalls") in the OT, and the length of time for the promises to be fulfilled. Given this, I don't find a reason in the Annunciation passages in Luke to think Mary understood the conception of the announced child to be immediate

What, ya never heard this song?............

Revelation 1:3 Blessed/Happy the one reading and the ones hearing the Words of the Prophecy and keepings in it having been Written, for the Time Is-Nigh/egguV <1451>.

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming ye are knowing that Nigh/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26NadQmo9T4&feature=related

 

[Thekla]

And yet I'm willing to bet that the average Greek & Semite on the street would automaticaly conclude "sibling".

I think the closest equivalent (for adelphos) would be 'related to'; looking at the way relationship is established and the way adelphos is used in the OT, I think 'related to through paternal line' would be assumed. For example, grandfathers can be referred to as fathers. The sons of Jacob are brothers, yet are born from four different women. The geneologies are typically (I've read this was per the Law) reckoned through the father, as in Matthew. As in the use of adelphos for Abraham and his nephew Lot, showing relationship through descent from a common male. Some describe James the less and Joses (iirc) as sons of Mary the wife of Alphaeus/Cleopus, related to Joseph the "antipater" (Lukes term - in place of/for Father).

Betrothal, a mutual promise or contract for a future marriage, is an explicit reason for people to think a marriage will take place. That a child is born is an explicit reason for people to think that the marriage did indeed take place. That the child is kept & raised as legitimate is yet another explicit reason to believe a couple are married. There may bew a limit to the importance of what people think, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

I think this may be the case - as the marriage ceremony was not always public, Mary's pregnancy with Christ following her betrothal with Joseph could have been considered "evidence" of a marriage having occured.