The word "until"

[visionary]

The Bible tells us that he was a 'just man.' That means he was a good man, honest, fair, and God-loving. If he wasn't married to Mary... what family that is his did he take to Egypt. Joseph obeyed the angel's message and took his family to Egypt to escape from Herod's soldiers. After many years, the family finally returned to their home village of Nazareth. Sounds like domestic marriaged life. Later Yeshua was missing for three days and finally Joseph and Mary found Him in the Temple teaching the scribes and elders. So obviously, 12 years later, they are still acting like husband and wife chasing after their children. After this, Yeshua returned home with Mary and Joseph and 'was subject to them'. While means that Yeshua recognised their parental authority over him and their marriage. Yeshua was not raised in an unconsumated marriage situation, his earthly mother and father were married in every sense of the word. Otherwise, Yeshua would be known as a bastard.

The difference between betrothal and marriage is not well understood in modern times. A betrothal was similar to an modern engagement, in that it was a period of preparation for married life, but unlike an engagement, betrothals were considered legally binding and therefore not easily broken. Also, betrothals took place in a formal ceremony, not in an informal private moment as do engagements today. Only after a marriage ceremony would the couple begin living together as man and wife, and be considered married.

 

[shinbits]

EDIT: See next post.

 

[shinbits]

The NT never states that they married. There is no Biblical record of any 'legal' relationship beyond betrothal.
(In fact, at the time of the flight to Egypt, when speaking to Joseph, the angel refers to Mary as "the child's mother" not "your wife".)
Absent any reference to their marriage, assuming a consummation is unscriptural as well.

Matthew 1:20 (Whole Chapter)
As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.

 

[Thekla]

Matthew 1:20 (Whole Chapter)
As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.

The use of "wife" is the opinion of the translator.
The word is "yuni", which means a woman of any age or marital status. It also means betrothed. It is not evidence of marriage. It can only said to be evidence of caretaking.

 

[Thekla]

The Bible tells us that he was a 'just man.' That means he was a good man, honest, fair, and God-loving. If he wasn't married to Mary... what family that is his did he take to Egypt. Joseph obeyed the angel's message and took his family to Egypt to escape from Herod's soldiers. After many years, the family finally returned to their home village of Nazareth. Sounds like domestic marriaged life. Later Yeshua was missing for three days and finally Joseph and Mary found Him in the Temple teaching the scribes and elders. So obviously, 12 years later, they are still acting like husband and wife chasing after their children. After this, Yeshua returned home with Mary and Joseph and 'was subject to them'. While means that Yeshua recognised their parental authority over him and their marriage. Yeshua was not raised in an unconsumated marriage situation, his earthly mother and father were married in every sense of the word. Otherwise, Yeshua would be known as a bastard.

The difference between betrothal and marriage is not well understood in modern times. A betrothal was similar to an modern engagement, in that it was a period of preparation for married life, but unlike an engagement, betrothals were considered legally binding and therefore not easily broken. Also, betrothals took place in a formal ceremony, not in an informal private moment as do engagements today. Only after a marriage ceremony would the couple begin living together as man and wife, and be considered married.

Please provide conclusive scriptural evidence of the marriage and its consummation.
There is no mention of other children in this account.
There is only evidence of a caretaking parental role.

 

[shinbits]

The use of "wife" is the opinion of the translator.
The word is "yuni", which means a woman of any age or marital status. It also means betrothed. It is not evidence of marriage. It can only said to be evidence of caretaking.

Joseph was engaged to Mary, prior to the angel appearing to him. That means there was intent to get married. That's more than a mere "opinion", it's a logical conclusion that "yuni" means wife.

 

[Livindesert]

Where ews has limit, it is the limit of the period of time referenced. As in English, there is no reference to what happens thereafter. Thus, only the span of time referenced can be spoken of with assurance, and nothing can be said with any surety of what comes after the referenced span.

In this case, your example, one must consider whether the Law is entirely a legal entity or the will of God for mankind expressed in created time in the form of limitations to encourage godliness. In this sense, if it is the latter, the Law is not legalism (as the Pharisees had it) but as Christ expressed it - love. The love that is of God is not ephemeral, because God is love (as John professed). Will the love that is of God pass away ?

You make good prose but have yet to bring anything ther than speculation steeped in Oral traditions that have no Biblical basis. It seems your Mary is found only outiside the realm of biblical teaching.

 

[Thekla]

Joseph was engaged to Mary, prior to the angel appearing to him. That means there was intent to get married. That's more than a mere "opinion", it's a logical conclusion that "yuni" means wife.

There is no Biblical evidence to support the opinion of the translator.

 

[shinbits]

There is no Biblical evidence to support the opinion of the translator.

Yes there is. They were engaged. The fact that Joseph intended to make Mary his wife, is evidence to support the "opinion" that yuni should be translated wife.

 

[Thekla]

You make good prose but have yet to bring anything ther than speculation steeped in Oral traditions that have no Biblical basis. It seems your Mary is found only outiside the realm of biblical teaching.

Your understanding of Mary is extra-Biblical.

The Orthodox Church refers also to the prophetic statements about Christ in the OT in its understanding of Mary.

The Christian Greeks in the Orthodox Church have never needed a translator, so there are not leaps of opinion in its understanding of the passages in question.

 

[Thekla]

Yes there is. They were engaged. The evidence that Joseph intended to make Mary his wife, supports the "opinion" that yuni should be translated wife.

Then provide evidence.

Otherwise, you have an opinion based on inference.

 

[Livindesert]

Your understanding of Mary is extra-Biblical.

The Orthodox Church refers also to the prophetic statements about Christ in the OT in its understanding of Mary.

The Christian Greeks in the Orthodox Church have never needed a translator, so there are not leaps of opinion in its understanding of the passages in question.

You only have OT passages that probably do not refer to Mary, yet have no NT which goes to show how you are twisting OT passages to fit your non biblical view. Where as there is pleantly of NT evidence that Mary had sex like any other woman.

Please give me biblical NT passages , not pagan Protoevangelium of James rehashed with supposed OT passages.

 

[shinbits]

Then provide evidence.

Otherwise, you have an opinion based on inference.

I did provide evidence. They were engaged. There's reason to infer that the translator's correct. No reason to infer otherwise.

You've provided NO evidence that the translator is wrong. I've provided evidence that the translator is correct.

 

[Livindesert]

We have also proved that Untill references a period of time that will end. So again more evidence that Mary did have sex.

 

[Thekla]

You only have OT passages that probably do not refer to Mary, yet have no NT which goes to show how you are twisting OT passages to fit your non biblical view. Where as there is pleantly of NT evidence that Mary had sex like any other woman.

Please give me biblical NT passages , not pagan Protoevangelium of James rehashed with supposed OT passages.

Provide evidence from Holy Scripture to support your claim. Otherwise, it is unBiblical.

As for the OT passages, see for example Ezekiel 43:27 - 44:4.

Who is referred to in the Psalm as one "only begotten" ? The Psalmist was not an only child.

Christians have used "typos" in interpretation from the earliest time (see Paul on this matter); it is only recently that typos is no longer used.

The typos of Mary is the singularity of use of the Ark.

 

[Thekla]

I did provide evidence. They were engaged. There's reason to infer that the translator's correct. No reason to infer otherwise.

You've provided NO evidence that the translator is wrong. I've provided evidence that the translator is correct.

You have not provided evidence; you have used an inference to support your opinion.

Inference is not evidence.

 

[Thekla]

We have also proved that Untill references a period of time that will end. So again more evidence that Mary did have sex.

Again, where until refers to a particular span of time it only refers to that span of time. The use of until does not demand a reversal of condition.

You should consult an English Grammar on this matter.

As for ews, it has not been demonstrated that Christ will not be at the (metaphoric) right hand of the Father after the end of time.

Likewise, if the spirit of the Law will pass away, then Revelation is in error (as it is there stated that adulterers, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven 21:8).

 

[Thekla]

Otherwise, Yeshua would be known as a bastard.

John 8:19

(See also the Babylonian Talmud.)

 

[shinbits]

You have not provided evidence; you have used an inference to support your opinion.

Inference is not evidence.

Yes it is. If someone came home and found their windows broken and their belongings ransacked, isn't it evidence of some type of burglary? Of course. Is you claimed "pfft, that's only inference, not evidence at all", people would look at you like your out of your mind.

Sure, it doesn't prove that house was robbed; a bear may have broken the window, crawled in, and rummaged for food for all we know. But all police offers and courts would first take that scene as evidence of robbery.

Likewise, the strong inference that Mary was married, is indeed evidence.

Peace.

 

[Thekla]

Yes it is. If someone came home and found their windows broken and their belongings ransacked, isn't it evidence of some type of burglary? Of course. Is you claimed "pfft, that's only inference, not evidence at all", people would look at you like your out of your mind.

It is evidence that something occurred; burglary is not the only option.
Consider; internal explosion (gas), tornado, vandalism, etc.

Sure, it doesn't prove that house robbed; a bear may have broken the window, crawled in, and rummaged for food for all we know. But all police offers and courts would first take that scene as evidence of robbery.

See above.

Likewise, the strong inference that Mary was married, is indeed evidence.

Again, inference is not evidence. It is opinion.

Can one be incarcerated on a single inference ?