Mary and Joseph did never taint their relation by sexual connection. [Archive]

stephen goswami

May 11th 2009, 08:46 AM

Mary and Joseph did never taint their relation by sexual connection.

Previous Sunday I was called to preach in a church I was attending. I prayerfully opened the New Testament and Luke 2-5 came up. When I tried to expound it, a new revelation came to me about Mary and Joseph’s relation. Here it is stated that Joseph came to Bethlehem with his betrothed. Certainly, then they were not ritually married as Mary is not called his wife. After that they had to flee to Egypt frantically to save themselves. So then also it was not possible. Then they returned to another place where people did not know them. (Certainly it was not only fear of the king but fear of the known people too.) Then also it would be most embarrassing to be wed with a grown up son. It would have set tongues wagging. Certainly angels were not coming to everyone to convince! So it can be assumed that they were never ritually married. But the everlasting covenant by God uniting them supercedes human laws.

About their relation, we have to rely on Mathew and Luke. Luke’s gospel is called by Catholics and some orthodox as Mary’s gospel. Tradition says that Luke got his detailed accounts from Mary. No gospel mentions their marriage. Mathew tells negatively that Joseph did not consummate their relation until the birth of Jesus. He never states positively that he did it.

And it was not simply possible in the context of Mary’s relation with God. It was the prevalent custom of all nations that king’s fiancée is sacrosanct to the subjects. It was also the same with women consecrated to gods. Look up in Samuel 2 where David tried much to make Uria to go to bed with his wife Bathsheba, after David violated her. But Uria never did, that even knowing that he may die for it. God is far above kings and how God-fearing Joseph could sensually touch her when she bore God’s son. But their spiritual relation was most fecund.
Also over the ages whenever sincere people receives the Word of God in the heart they become pregnant in the spiritual sense. They also rise over lust and sexual procreation to create spiritually. In all denominations there are such people. When I, an insignificant person, received the word of God in my heart I also felt a call to live celibate life to concentrate on spiritual procreation.

FredFlanders

May 14th 2009, 04:32 AM

themuzicman

May 14th 2009, 09:11 AM

Mary and Joseph did never taint their relation by sexual connection.

Previous Sunday I was called to preach in a church I was attending. I prayerfully opened the New Testament and Luke 2-5 came up. When I tried to expound it, a new revelation came to me about Mary and Joseph’s relation. Here it is stated that Joseph came to Bethlehem with his betrothed. Certainly, then they were not ritually married as Mary is not called his wife. After that they had to flee to Egypt frantically to save themselves. So then also it was not possible. Then they returned to another place where people did not know them. (Certainly it was not only fear of the king but fear of the known people too.) Then also it would be most embarrassing to be wed with a grown up son. It would have set tongues wagging. Certainly angels were not coming to everyone to convince! So it can be assumed that they were never ritually married. But the everlasting covenant by God uniting them supercedes human laws.

About their relation, we have to rely on Mathew and Luke. Luke’s gospel is called by Catholics and some orthodox as Mary’s gospel. Tradition says that Luke got his detailed accounts from Mary. No gospel mentions their marriage. Mathew tells negatively that Joseph did not consummate their relation until the birth of Jesus. He never states positively that he did it.

"Until" is written for a reason. There is no other possible interpretation for "until" in this context except that the marriage was consummated after Christ's birth. That is the clear and only intent of using "until" here.

And it was not simply possible in the context of Mary’s relation with God. It was the prevalent custom of all nations that king’s fiancée is sacrosanct to the subjects. It was also the same with women consecrated to gods. Look up in Samuel 2 where David tried much to make Uria to go to bed with his wife Bathsheba, after David violated her. But Uria never did, that even knowing that he may die for it. God is far above kings and how God-fearing Joseph could sensually touch her when she bore God’s son. But their spiritual relation was most fecund.

Uriah refused to go to his wife because his troops were in the field. He never knew his life would be in danger.

Further, I find it disturbing that you would lower God to the level of the pagan gods.

Also over the ages whenever sincere people receives the Word of God in the heart they become pregnant in the spiritual sense. They also rise over lust and sexual procreation to create spiritually. In all denominations there are such people. When I, an insignificant person, received the word of God in my heart I also felt a call to live celibate life to concentrate on spiritual procreation.

You talk about sex and procreation as though they were dirty and sinful when, in fact, a sexual relationship between husband and wife images God.

Sorry, but I find this line of argumentation unscriptural.

Michael

Obsidian

May 14th 2009, 12:17 PM

You really hit the nail on the head by bringing up the pagan gods. Celibacy for its own sake is a pagan idea. That's why the pagan "gnostics" embraced it before Paul ultimately condemned them. It's also why the Pharisees fled to the opposite extreme, morally mandating marriage for everybody based on a flawed interpretation of Genesis.

Your exegesis also wrests on a hugely faulty assumption. You said that they would not have had time to get married before they fled to Egypt, but in reality, the wise men did not show up for another few years. So they had plenty of time to marry and have lots of passionate, God-fearing, and God-honoring sex.

joel

May 22nd 2009, 07:01 PM

Certainly, then they were not ritually married as Mary is not called his wife.
...
Then also it would be most embarrassing to be wed with a grown up son. It would have set tongues wagging. Certainly angels were not coming to everyone to convince! So it can be assumed that they were never ritually married.
...
No gospel mentions their marriage.
...
And it was not simply possible in the context of Mary’s relation with God. It was the prevalent custom of all nations that king’s fiancée is sacrosanct to the subjects. It was also the same with women consecrated to gods....God is far above kings and how God-fearing Joseph could sensually touch her when she bore God’s son.

I think your thesis is not compatible with Matthew 1:20-25, "But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'"

The angel did not tell Joseph, "Don't dare sensually touch Mary, for she bears God's son." On the contrary, the angel instructed Joseph to wed Mary, because the Child has been conceived of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to having been conceived by another man)!

In verse 24-25, "And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." So there is no question: Joseph did marry Mary, on the instruction of an angel of the Lord.

stephen goswami

May 25th 2009, 09:25 AM

I think your thesis is not compatible with Matthew 1:20-25, "But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'"

The angel did not tell Joseph, "Don't dare sensually touch Mary, for she bears God's son." On the contrary, the angel instructed Joseph to wed Mary, because the Child has been conceived of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to having been conceived by another man)!

In verse 24-25, "And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." So there is no question: Joseph did marry Mary, on the instruction of an angel of the Lord.

There were many marriages in the past and even now, where there was no sexual contact. But sex-obsessed modern people can’t imagine it. I know some housewife having children were latter touched and ordained by Christ to do his work in a special way. After that they never had sex as husband began to revere her. They both did Christ’s work. If I was in his position I would have done it too, to show reverence to God.
Too much stress on gospels that were written after long years from memory is not correct. So majority of apostle’s gospels were rejected by the compiling R.C. church. Living Christ and common sense is better guide in interpreting everything.

eudyptes

May 25th 2009, 03:43 PM

Obsidian

May 25th 2009, 05:31 PM

There were many marriages in the past and even now, where there was no sexual contact. But sex-obsessed modern people can’t imagine it. I know some housewife having children were latter touched and ordained by Christ to do his work in a special way.

If she failed to have sex with her husband, then she sinned every time she went to bed at night.

4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Michelle

May 25th 2009, 06:50 PM

every time?

Obsidian

May 25th 2009, 08:34 PM

:lol:

Well she owed sex to her husband, and if she never gave it to him, she lived her entire married life in unrepentant sin.

JAYMZ

May 25th 2009, 08:52 PM

[F New Roman][F New Roman]Mary and Joseph did never taint their relation by sexual connection. [/FONT]

[/FONT][F New Roman]Previous Sunday I was called to preach in a church I was attending. I prayerfully opened the New Testament and Luke 2-5 came up. When I tried to expound it, a new revelation came to me about Mary and Joseph’s relation. Here it is stated that Joseph came to Bethlehem with his betrothed. Certainly, then they were not ritually married as Mary is not called his wife. After that they had to flee to Egypt frantically to save themselves. So then also it was not possible. Then they returned to another place where people did not know them. (Certainly it was not only fear of the king but fear of the known people too.) Then also it would be most embarrassing to be wed with a grown up son. It would have set tongues wagging. Certainly angels were not coming to everyone to convince! So it can be assumed that they were never ritually married. But the everlasting covenant by God uniting them supercedes human laws. [/FONT]

[F New Roman]About their relation, we have to rely on Mathew and Luke. Luke’s gospel is called by Catholics and some orthodox as Mary’s gospel. Tradition says that Luke got his detailed accounts from Mary. No gospel mentions their marriage. Mathew tells negatively that Joseph did not consummate their relation until the birth of Jesus. He never states positively that he did it. [/FONT]

[F New Roman]And it was not simply possible in the context of Mary’s relation with God. It was the prevalent custom of all nations that king’s fiancée is sacrosanct to the subjects. It was also the same with women consecrated to gods. Look up in Samuel 2 where David tried much to make Uria to go to bed with his wife Bathsheba, after David violated her. But Uria never did, that even knowing that he may die for it. God is far above kings and how God-fearing Joseph could sensually touch her when she bore God’s son. But their spiritual relation was most fecund.[/FONT]
[F New Roman]Also over the ages whenever sincere people receives the Word of God in the heart they become pregnant in the spiritual sense. They also rise over lust and sexual procreation to create spiritually. In all denominations there are such people. When I, an insignificant person, received the word of God in my heart I also felt a call to live celibate life to concentrate on spiritual procreation.[/FONT]
Well, you know.......eh, why bother.

Michelle

May 25th 2009, 08:59 PM

Well, you know.......eh, why bother.

Why bother having sex? :stunned:

Or

Why bother answering the OP? :teeth:

JAYMZ

May 25th 2009, 09:03 PM

No contest.
The latter.lol

Vigilante

May 25th 2009, 09:13 PM

If she failed to have sex with her husband, then she sinned every time she went to bed at night.

That's a beautiful quote. Heeee

I do prefer to say "making love" over "sex" because making love is what a married couple do for intimacy, while sex is just one act. A husband and wife should "make love" at most times when they are together, with sex taking place some of that time as well.

JAYMZ

May 25th 2009, 09:22 PM

That's a beautiful quote. Heeee

I do prefer to say "making love" over "sex" because making love is what a married couple do for intimacy, while sex is just one act. A husband and wife should "make love" at most times when they are together, with sex taking place some of that time as well.
Somebodies trying to win some ladies over.:lol:

Shadow Phoenix

May 25th 2009, 09:24 PM

I just find it bizarre to believe that Joseph and Mary would never have enjoyed the great gift of God. Newsflash to everyone. Joseph and Mary had hormones just like the rest of us.

stephen goswami

May 28th 2009, 10:12 AM

I just find it bizarre to believe that Joseph and Mary would never have enjoyed the great gift of God. Newsflash to everyone. Joseph and Mary had hormones just like the rest of us.

Greater gifts of God require relinquishing great gifts of God. Lower order of the ruler devil must make way for the higher order of God. Christ an apostles had hormones like us. Don’t forget that devil is also a son of God, though rebel. Animal sex is a gift for the soulless animals. Humanity is created for greater gifts. Tell me if there is sex in heaven.

themuzicman

May 28th 2009, 10:13 AM

We aren't spending eternity in heaven. We spend eternity on a renewed and redeemed earth. And, since sex existed before the fall, a restored earth will include people having sex.

Michael

stephen goswami

May 28th 2009, 10:33 AM

I just find it bizarre to believe that Joseph and Mary would never have enjoyed the great gift of God. Newsflash to everyone. Joseph and Mary had hormones just like the rest of us.
Greater gifts of God needs relinquishing great gifts of God. the gift of sex for the soulless animals is inadequate for souled humanity. Christ and apostles also had hormones like us but they sublimated them for the best- spiritual procreation. tell me if there is sex in heaven.

stephen goswami

May 28th 2009, 10:40 AM

Hmmm....

" While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him." Matthew 12:46 (NASB)

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? " Matthew 13:55 (NASB)

" Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him." Mark 6:3 (NASB)

" But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19 (NASB)

.....seems that there was some sort of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary.......and since Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception....it would follow that His brother's and sister's were conceived after.....

...but I do agree with you they never did "taint" their relationship with a sexual connection.....they had a healthy, natural, sexual relationship.....nothing was "tainted" at all.....

In semitic tribes paternal uncles are called father and paternal cousins are called brothers and sisters. Muslims inherited that from Arabs. Our order is to multiply by spiritual progeny. generating carnal progeny would need war, colonies and empires. N.T. supersedes O.T. by Christ.
But, is it not stated in bible that carnal progeny is enemy to spiritual progeny? So Christ and the apostles never created carnal progeny but concentrated in generating spiritual ones. We are called to follow Christ and apostles. But following Christ is impossible without holy spirit help. Those who cry for it sincerely will certainly get it.
But there are people who due to self-centered attitude or group pressure as in some churches and nonChristian monastic groups become barren spiritually and bodily. For them it is better to marry to be bodily fecund. In the Middle Ages catholic church became so to foster terrible perversions. So the protestant churches separated and promoted marriage among clergies. But even among them, there were sincere people who engaged themselves wholeheartedly for saving souls remaining celibate or living as if they are not married. This St. Paul proscribed. __________________

Shadow Phoenix

May 28th 2009, 03:22 PM

Greater gifts of God needs relinquishing great gifts of God. the gift of sex for the soulless animals is inadequate for souled humanity.

I sure hope not because that's how all of us got here. This is Gnosticism. Not Christianity.

Christ and apostles also had hormones like us but they sublimated them for the best- spiritual procreation. tell me if there is sex in heaven.

Christ wasn't married. Peter was. Got evidence he was celibate his whole life?

Is there sex in Heaven? Yep.

popaface

May 28th 2009, 09:16 PM

I think that very many Christians are affriad of sex. There's nothing disgusting in it, in fact, we humans are sexual beings.

I'm of the opinion that Mary and Joseph had enough sex to have as many children as they did have (and probably more). Sex is not only very very fun, it's also used for procreation, if people so choose.

Allan

FredFlanders

May 28th 2009, 09:55 PM

[F New Roman]There were many marriages in the past and even now, where there was no sexual contact. But sex-obsessed modern people can’t imagine it. I know some housewife having children were latter touched and ordained by Christ to do his work in a special way. After that they never had sex as husband began to revere her. They both did Christ’s work. If I was in his position I would have done it too, to show reverence to God. [/FONT]
[F New Roman]Too much stress on gospels that were written after long years from memory is not correct. So majority of apostle’s gospels were rejected by the compiling R.C. church. Living Christ and common sense is better guide in interpreting everything.[/FONT]

Stephen,
Your thinking about sex between married couples is some what strange. Continuing with that type of idea will lead you into much unnecessary contention. Your idea may be ok for your walk but unnecessarily for others and not scriptually based.

Alucard

May 28th 2009, 10:17 PM

"Until" is written for a reason. There is no other possible interpretation for "until" in this context except that the marriage was consummated after Christ's birth. That is the clear and only intent of using "until" here.

"Until this time, I am a Christian."

Does this mean that after this time, I stop being a Christian?

I just find it bizarre to believe that Joseph and Mary would never have enjoyed the great gift of God. Newsflash to everyone. Joseph and Mary had hormones just like the rest of us.

Or, Mary was a young girl who had been dedicated to the Temple and a life of celibacy, and she needed a husband to live with while she was ritually impure (i.e. having her period). Joseph was also likely an old man (and the Protoevangelium of James makes reference to this).

joel

May 28th 2009, 11:06 PM

"Until this time, I am a Christian."

Does this mean that after this time, I stop being a Christian?

That is what it sounds like. Before reading your second sentence, I actually did wonder if you were announcing that somehow the prior post convinced you to go atheist (perhaps sarcastically).

Alucard

May 28th 2009, 11:49 PM

That is what it sounds like. Before reading your second sentence, I actually did wonder if you were announcing that somehow the prior post convinced you to go atheist (perhaps sarcastically).

"[Joseph] did not know her till (εως) she had brought forth her firstborn Son." (Matthew 1:25)

Now, let's look at that in other contexts.

"And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (εως) this day." (Matthew 11:23)

Does that mean that on the day that Jesus said that, had Sodom still been there, it would have stopped remaining?

"I am with you always, even to (εως) the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20)

Does that mean that Jesus will abandon us at the end of the age?

"For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until (εως) now." (Romans 8:22)

Does that mean that the moment Paul wrote that, creation stopped groaning and laboring?

"Till (εως) I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." (1 Timothy 4:13)

Does that mean that when Paul does arrive, they should stop giving attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine?

"The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till (εως) I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Psalm 110:1)

Does that mean that when God makes Christ's enemies his footstool, Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father?

RBerman

May 29th 2009, 03:18 AM

Too much stress on gospels that were written after long years from memory is not correct. So majority of apostle’s gospels were rejected by the compiling R.C. church. Living Christ and common sense is better guide in interpreting everything.
Stephen, please get under the authority of a church that teaches the Bible. I lament to think that people invite you to preach to them when you don't even believe the Bible contains reliable information about Jesus Christ, but the voices in your head are more trustworthy.

RBerman

May 29th 2009, 03:43 AM

"[Joseph] did not know her till (εως) she had brought forth her firstborn Son." (Matthew 1:25)

Now, let's look at that in other contexts.

"And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (εως) this day." (Matthew 11:23)

Does that mean that on the day that Jesus said that, had Sodom still been there, it would have stopped remaining?

"I am with you always, even to (εως) the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20)

Does that mean that Jesus will abandon us at the end of the age?

"For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until (εως) now." (Romans 8:22)

Does that mean that the moment Paul wrote that, creation stopped groaning and laboring?

"Till (εως) I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." (1 Timothy 4:13)

Does that mean that when Paul does arrive, they should stop giving attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine?

"The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, till (εως) I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Psalm 110:1)

Does that mean that when God makes Christ's enemies his footstool, Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father?
I agree that in all the examples after the first one, εως does not imply that the specified action ceases after passing the specified point in time. But there are plenty of examples of εως in which it's clear that the specified action does end at the specified time. It also means other things, like "to" and "while." For instance:

So all the generations from Abraham to (εως) David are fourteen generations; from David to (εως) the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to (εως) the Messiah, fourteen generations.

Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until (εως) I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him." So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until (εως) the death of Herod... But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said, "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead." So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.

Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while (εως) you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until (εως) you have paid up the last cent.

When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until (εως) now."

We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as (εως) it is day; night is coming when no one can work.

Many other examples could be given of the same thing. So really context is required to help us understand whether cessation of the specified action is implied. In the case of Matthew 11:23 for instance, obviously Sodom wouldn't cease to exist just because Jesus was talking about it. Similarly for your other examples. In the case of Matthew 1:25, it's at least arguable whether the context implies that the state of celibacy ended after the birth of Christ. Will you at least grant that this particular text is ambiguous on the topic, even if you hold to Mary's perpetual virginity on other grounds?

shunyadragon

May 29th 2009, 07:35 AM

There were many marriages in the past and even now, where there was no sexual contact. But sex-obsessed modern people can’t imagine it. I know some housewife having children were latter touched and ordained by Christ to do his work in a special way. After that they never had sex as husband began to revere her. They both did Christ’s work. If I was in his position I would have done it too, to show reverence to God.
Too much stress on gospels that were written after long years from memory is not correct. So majority of apostle’s gospels were rejected by the compiling R.C. church. Living Christ and common sense is better guide in interpreting everything.

It still remains that Msry had other children after Jesus according to the Gospels, and the marriage that Jesus attended, and Mary requested Jesus to serve was obviously the traditional wedding of one of Jesus' siblings.

Shadow Phoenix

May 29th 2009, 08:20 AM

"Until this time, I am a Christian."

Does this mean that after this time, I stop being a Christian?

No, but you need to explain what Matthew meant by until then.

Or, Mary was a young girl who had been dedicated to the Temple and a life of celibacy, and she needed a husband to live with while she was ritually impure (i.e. having her period). Joseph was also likely an old man (and the Protoevangelium of James makes reference to this).

Do we have any evidence whatsoever of this? Why should I turn to a non-canonical book when what I have in the book seems clear enough to me that there came a time when Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse and that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

Eeset-Shadowgrl

May 29th 2009, 09:25 AM

Joseph was in his early thirties when he married the sixteen year old Mary. Mary and Joseph grew to love each other and after Jesus had matured beyond his childhood years they conceived children, James, Jude, and the daughter.

"o,o"

May 29th 2009, 10:32 AM

Hello,

Mary and Joseph did never taint their relation by sexual connection.

I would like to say that it is very helpful that you made your fundamental assumption quite clear and at the beginning of your posting. This is often not done and I at least find it makes the understanding of the posting much easier, so thank you. However, I do not understand why you assume that sex would "taint" a marriage. I can see an argument that it is possible for a couple to be married and not have sex, that it is not a requirement for marriage, but I see no BIblical basis for claim that somehow sex is wrong and undermines marriage.

Alucard

May 29th 2009, 10:37 AM

Will you at least grant that this particular text is ambiguous on the topic, even if you hold to Mary's perpetual virginity on other grounds?

Of course. I was just trying to show that the word "until" does not necessarily imply a cessation of a particular state of being, contrary to the extremely confident assertions from some of the Protestants in this thread that it did.

No, but you need to explain what Matthew meant by until then.

I thought it would be pretty obvious what I would be asserting Matthew was getting at - that prior to giving birth to Jesus, Mary and Joseph had not known each other. That says nothing about whether or not they knew each other afterward, it only proves that Mary did indeed conceive and bear Christ while a virgin.

Do we have any evidence whatsoever of this? Why should I turn to a non-canonical book when what I have in the book seems clear enough to me that there came a time when Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse and that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

Non-canonical =/= necessarily bad or incorrect. The Infancy Gospel of James was not written by an apostle or a disciple of an apostle under the authority of said apostle, despite the fact that it bears St. James' name. However, it is the tradition of the Church that the events described in the book are correct, and it has been the continual consensus of the Church that the Theotokos is Ever-Virgin.

Plus, if Joseph was an old man, like the Protoevangelium says he was, it stands to reason that he would have had children from a previous marriage.

themuzicman

May 29th 2009, 10:43 AM

Of course. I was just trying to show that the word "until" does not necessarily imply a cessation of a particular state of being, contrary to the extremely confident assertions from some of the Protestants in this thread that it did.

However, if this is the case, then you need to tell us what "until" is there for. While it may not indicate a change in the condition, it does indicate some kind of change, and we'd like to know what kind of change you see in this "until."

Michael

Alucard

May 29th 2009, 10:50 AM

However, if this is the case, then you need to tell us what "until" is there for. While it may not indicate a change in the condition, it does indicate some kind of change, and we'd like to know what kind of change you see in this "until."

Michael

I don't see a change. Putting it bluntly, it's an awkward translation into English. It serves to accentuate the fact that Joseph and Mary did not know each other in order for Jesus to be conceived and be born.

themuzicman

May 29th 2009, 10:53 AM

It's not really an awkward translation. Had Matthew intended to tell us that they never had intercourse, then he would have stopped before "until." But "hEWS" means pretty much the same thing as "until" here.

Some kind of change is indicated.

Alucard

May 29th 2009, 11:06 AM

But "hEWS" means pretty much the same thing as "until" here.

I've already shown that that is often not the case.

themuzicman

May 29th 2009, 11:08 AM

But in this case, it does. The context doesn't allow any of your other alternatives.

Michael

Alucard

May 29th 2009, 11:13 AM

But in this case, it does. The context doesn't allow any of your other alternatives.

Michael

You're reading it as if it was written in plain English, which it was not.

I believe that Jezz already adequately dealt with your objections in that thread dating from last year. I see no need to go round and round in circles, especially since nobody is going to end up convinced (if they were, Jezz would either no longer be Orthodox, or you and I would not be arguing about this). However, I'll echo what he said in that thread, and also what I already said to RBerman in this thread; the meaning of the text is ambiguous and the use of the word "until" does not conclusively inform us of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not - we must look to external sources.

"o,o"

May 29th 2009, 12:45 PM

Hello,

Joseph was in his early thirties when he married the sixteen year old Mary. Mary and Joseph grew to love each other and after Jesus had matured beyond his childhood years they conceived children, James, Jude, and the daughter.

Well I have to say that that is a very interesting story but I do not believe that any of that is actually in the Bible.

themuzicman

May 29th 2009, 12:54 PM

You're reading it as if it was written in plain English, which it was not.

I believe that Jezz already adequately dealt with your objections in that thread dating from last year. I see no need to go round and round in circles, especially since nobody is going to end up convinced (if they were, Jezz would either no longer be Orthodox, or you and I would not be arguing about this). However, I'll echo what he said in that thread, and also what I already said to RBerman in this thread; the meaning of the text is ambiguous and the use of the word "until" does not conclusively inform us of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not - we must look to external sources.

I went back and read that thread, and ti certainly wasn't resolved, then. I do remember Jerome's arguments, and remember not being convinced.

Michael

Obsidian

May 29th 2009, 03:17 PM

Did the Theotokos just really enjoy sinning against her husband by denying him sex -- and thereby heightening his temptations toward adultery? (Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5)

Shadow Phoenix

May 29th 2009, 03:21 PM

I thought it would be pretty obvious what I would be asserting Matthew was getting at - that prior to giving birth to Jesus, Mary and Joseph had not known each other.

Yes, that's obvious. Which would then imply that after the birth of Jesus, they knew each other.

That says nothing about whether or not they knew each other afterward, it only proves that Mary did indeed conceive and bear Christ while a virgin.

You'll have to tell me what the former means. It seems to me the translation is clear and the evidence in Scripture of Jesus having brothers and sisters is clear also. Why should I go against what I see as a theme of Scripture in order to support a doctrine I see as having no support in Scripture?

Non-canonical =/= necessarily bad or incorrect.

Nor did I say it did. I simply wanted to know what the Bible taught and thought biblical evidence would be the most relevant.

The Infancy Gospel of James was not written by an apostle or a disciple of an apostle under the authority of said apostle, despite the fact that it bears St. James' name. However, it is the tradition of the Church that the events described in the book are correct, and it has been the continual consensus of the Church that the Theotokos is Ever-Virgin.

Good for them. Why should I agree?

Plus, if Joseph was an old man, like the Protoevangelium says he was, it stands to reason that he would have had children from a previous marriage.

And the reason I should accept the protoevangelium as valid is?.....

Shadow Phoenix

May 29th 2009, 03:22 PM

Hello,

I would like to say that it is very helpful that you made your fundamental assumption quite clear and at the beginning of your posting. This is often not done and I at least find it makes the understanding of the posting much easier, so thank you. However, I do not understand why you assume that sex would "taint" a marriage. I can see an argument that it is possible for a couple to be married and not have sex, that it is not a requirement for marriage, but I see no BIblical basis for claim that somehow sex is wrong and undermines marriage.

Yeah. Isn't it amazing how many people want to taint a good thing like marriage with sex?

Obsidian

May 29th 2009, 03:36 PM

Would it be acceptable for me to marry one of my male friends -- as long as we don't taint the marriage with sex?

themuzicman

May 29th 2009, 03:37 PM

Males can't marry each other.

Obsidian

May 29th 2009, 07:03 PM

I wonder if they were able to refrain from tainting their marriage via cuddling, or kissing, or lust.

Shadow Phoenix

May 29th 2009, 07:20 PM

I wonder if they were able to refrain from tainting their marriage via cuddling, or kissing, or lust.

Let's hope they weren't actually attracted to one another. (Even though I think Proverbs 5:18-19 is in fact commanding that.)

Eeset-Shadowgrl

May 30th 2009, 01:30 PM

Hello,

Well I have to say that that is a very interesting story but I do not believe that any of that is actually in the Bible.
There are many facts not in the bible. It is a focused book not an encyclopedia. If you want specifics, Mary was 16 and Joseph was 36 at the time they were wed in Carmel. The 3 after the birth of the Christ came in order, James first, then the daughter then Jude. At that time Jesus was no longer living with Joseph and Mary. Their relationship had grown over the years and Mary was by then in her mid twenties. She was very beautiful.

Now, aren't you glad you asked? Seek and you shall find just as He gave. He will answer these questions for you too.

"o,o"

May 30th 2009, 01:52 PM

Hello,

There are many facts not in the bible. It is a focused book not an encyclopedia. If you want specifics, Mary was 16 and Joseph was 36 at the time they were wed in Carmel. The 3 after the birth of the Christ came in order, James first, then the daughter then Jude. At that time Jesus was no longer living with Joseph and Mary. Their relationship had grown over the years and Mary was by then in her mid twenties. She was very beautiful.

Now, aren't you glad you asked? Seek and you shall find just as He gave. He will answer these questions for you too.

Yes you are correct, the Bible is not an encyclopedia. However, it is the only source of facts that I know of in regards to Jesus and his family. So I was curious where these other facts that you report here came from.

Obsidian

May 30th 2009, 03:28 PM

I think I should be allowed to marry my sister as long as I don't taint our marriage with sex.

mostlyharmless

May 31st 2009, 11:05 AM

You'll have to tell me what the former means. It seems to me the translation is clear and the evidence in Scripture of Jesus having brothers and sisters is clear also.

Sorry but if you care to take a look into the debate about these scriptures and historical evidence on the 'brothers and sisters' it is certainly not clear that Jesus had natural brothers and sisters from the Virgin Mary. I think that once you put the scriptures into their proper historical context and align them with historical beliefs and teachings about the Theotokos there is a lot of evidence that Jesus never had any natural brothers or sisters.

Blessings

shunyadragon

May 31st 2009, 01:58 PM

Sorry but if you care to take a look into the debate about these scriptures and historical evidence on the 'brothers and sisters' it is certainly not clear that Jesus had natural brothers and sisters from the Virgin Mary. I think that once you put the scriptures into their proper historical context and align them with historical beliefs and teachings about the Theotokos there is a lot of evidence that Jesus never had any natural brothers or sisters.

Blessings

If you take into consideration the marriage that Jesus attended, Mary was the hostess, which in Jewish tradition would be the mother of the groom asking the eldest son to serve the guests. In the proper historical context Jesus had two brothers and a sister according to scripture.

Eeset-Shadowgrl

May 31st 2009, 03:28 PM

Hello,

Yes you are correct, the Bible is not an encyclopedia. However, it is the only source of facts that I know of in regards to Jesus and his family. So I was curious where these other facts that you report here came from.
Your question was answered in my last post. Read it carefully. I doubt you will believe but that is as it is. :shrug:

As to your lack of knowledge of writings other than the bible, many texts were set aside and not included when the bible was assembled for one reason or another. Many of those texts were venerated and yet several centuries after the ascension the early church sought to have them destroyed. Fortunately God did not permit that attempt to be 100% successful. Later, after the printing press came into being, many of these works were attacked and often condemned or stigmatized. Many have survived in one form or another. If you read some you will also find their authenticity subject to great debate. I will not presume to sort all of that out for you. Here is one starting place should you desire to engage in the effort. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

mostlyharmless

May 31st 2009, 05:39 PM

If you take into consideration the marriage that Jesus attended, Mary was the hostess, which in Jewish tradition would be the mother of the groom asking the eldest son to serve the guests. In the proper historical context Jesus had two brothers and a sister according to scripture.

I do not think the wedding at Cana account is particularly supportive of Jesus having natural siblings. I don't observe Jesus serving the guests in this account. He is requested to perform a miracle not serve. The steward is the one serving. If he had an important place in the wedding why does his mother need to instruct the servents to follow his directions? Why the use of 'they' when describing the wine running out rather then 'we'?

What features of the account do you think imply Mary was the hostess? Even if she is the hostess everyone agrees that Jesus is her eldest son.

Blessings

"o,o"

May 31st 2009, 07:14 PM

Hello,

I do not think the wedding at Cana account is particularly supportive of Jesus having natural siblings. I don't observe Jesus serving the guests in this account. He is requested to perform a miracle not serve. The steward is the one serving. If he had an important place in the wedding why does his mother need to instruct the servents to follow his directions? Why the use of 'they' when describing the wine running out rather then 'we'? What features of the account do you think imply Mary was the hostess? Even if she is the hostess everyone agrees that Jesus is her eldest son.

I believe that the most convincing verses in this matter are found in Mark 3:33 and Matthew 12:48. In these verses Jesus is among his followers and is told that his mother and brothers are outside and wish to see him. His reply is to ask "Who is my mother and who are brothers?" He then states that his true family is his followers. This is a contrast between his biological family and his spiritual family. This is only an effective statement if the family outside is actually his biological family. If the men outside were not his biological brothers, then the rhetorical question is meaningless.

"o,o"

May 31st 2009, 07:19 PM

Your question was answered in my last post. Read it carefully. I doubt you will believe but that is as it is.

I did read you posts, unfortunately I was unable to find any reference to the source of the facts that you presented. The link you provided had dozens of documents with hundreds of pages. If you could, would provde a reference to a particular source or set of sources? Thanks.

mostlyharmless

May 31st 2009, 07:48 PM

I believe that the most convincing verses in this matter are found in Mark 3:33 and Matthew 12:48. In these verses Jesus is among his followers and is told that his mother and brothers are outside and wish to see him. His reply is to ask "Who is my mother and who are brothers?" He then states that his true family is his followers. This is a contrast between his biological family and his spiritual family. This is only an effective statement if the family outside is actually his biological family. If the men outside were not his biological brothers, then the rhetorical question is meaningless.

This does not hold true, because in the culture of this area cousins and half-brothers (the other options for who these 'brothers' are) are also considered core family members unlike most family's now. This is why Hebrew had no word for cousin and used brother instead.

Jesus' statement makes just as much sense if the 'brothers' are actual cousins in this culture since the comparison is still natural family to spiritual family. Remember that in Jewish culture of 1st century and many other cultures family is a much broader than commonly used in western culture.

Blessings

shunyadragon

May 31st 2009, 09:05 PM

I do not think the wedding at Cana account is particularly supportive of Jesus having natural siblings. I don't observe Jesus serving the guests in this account. He is requested to perform a miracle not serve. The steward is the one serving. If he had an important place in the wedding why does his mother need to instruct the servents to follow his directions? Why the use of 'they' when describing the wine running out rather then 'we'?

What features of the account do you think imply Mary was the hostess? Even if she is the hostess everyone agrees that Jesus is her eldest son.

Blessings

Here is where we differ. I believe the role of Mary and Jesus in the wedding reflect Jewish tradition as a family wedding, apparently you do not. The other references to siblings I think are clear in the historical context of Mary having at least four children. There is absolutely nothing in the NT that indicates that Mary remain a virgin in her marriage to Joseph.

"o,o"

June 1st 2009, 11:26 PM

Hello,

This does not hold true, because in the culture of this area cousins and half-brothers (the other options for who these 'brothers' are) are also considered core family members unlike most family's now. This is why Hebrew had no word for cousin and used brother instead.

I do not believe that you are correct in this matter. What we know of Jesus comes from the Gospels which are written in Greek, not Hebrew. Greek does indeed have a word for cousin (συγγενής syggenēs) which was used in Luke 1:36 to describe Mary's relationship to Ann, mother of John the Baptist. Similarly in Luke 1:58 Ann's cousins and neighbors are noted by the correct Greek words. The author of Luke was familiar with the both concept of a cousin and used the Greek word for cousin to describe that second generation relationship.

Moreover, in Hebrew it is true that there is no word for cousins and brothers, but cousins are not designated by the word "brother" or "sister". Rather the term "uncle's daughter" (bat-dowd) (Ester 2:7 & 2:15 plus First Samuel 14:50) or "uncle's son" (ben-dowd) (Leviticus25:49, Samuel 14:50, Jeremiah 32:8, 32:9, and 32:12) some similar grammatical construction are used.

Jesus' statement makes just as much sense if the 'brothers' are actual cousins in this culture since the comparison is still natural family to spiritual family. Remember that in Jewish culture of 1st century and many other cultures family is a much broader than commonly used in western culture.

This is no doubt true, however the Biblical authors had available to them the Greek words for cousin and used them when appropriate. Since the Bible authors used the word brothers and cousins as appropriate, it would seem to that they wrote the words that captured the meanings that they intended.

shunyadragon

June 2nd 2009, 07:51 AM

This does not hold true, because in the culture of this area cousins and half-brothers (the other options for who these 'brothers' are) are also considered core family members unlike most family's now. This is why Hebrew had no word for cousin and used brother instead.

Jesus' statement makes just as much sense if the 'brothers' are actual cousins in this culture since the comparison is still natural family to spiritual family. Remember that in Jewish culture of 1st century and many other cultures family is a much broader than commonly used in western culture.

Blessings

Part of the problem with this view is that there is absolutely no support in the Bible for the view that Mary and Joesph did not marry and carry on a normal family life. There is a clear reference that they did marry after Jesus was born, and I believe the references to brothers and sister are sufficient in the context to conclude that Mary and Joseph had a normal family.

mostlyharmless

June 2nd 2009, 08:40 AM

Part of the problem with this view is that there is absolutely no support in the Bible for the view that Mary and Joesph did not marry and carry on a normal family life. There is a clear reference that they did marry after Jesus was born, and I believe the references to brothers and sister are sufficient in the context to conclude that Mary and Joseph had a normal family.

I understand your view but there is no compelling reason to believe that any of the references to brothers have to be natural children of Mary. I doubt you place any value on the infancy narratives in the gospels either, so you have no reason to believe that Mary and Joseph's marriage was special in any way. It is hard to imagine their marriage was normal if the conception and birth of Jesus was as momentous as reported.

All the fairly small references to Jesus family fit comfortably within the traditional view of the ever virginity of Mary when examined closely. Preconceptions about the truthfulness of the early historical witness to Mary's virginity tend to determine beliefs here.

Blessings

Obsidian

June 2nd 2009, 08:54 AM

The Bible should tend to determine our beliefs here. And if Mary refused to have sex with Joseph, she was without a doubt, the worst wife ever in the history of the planet. She would certainly be no role model. She would have lived in unrepentent sin, in complete violation of Pauline teaching. And for those of you who tend to believe in works-based salvation (I do not), I believe that would probably place her in hell.

So there's your theotokos.

This is why Hebrew had no word for cousin and used brother instead.

And the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, btw

mostlyharmless

June 2nd 2009, 09:26 AM

I do not believe that you are correct in this matter. What we know of Jesus comes from the Gospels which are written in Greek, not Hebrew. Greek does indeed have a word for cousin (συγγενής syggenēs) which was used in Luke 1:36 to describe Mary's relationship to Ann, mother of John the Baptist. Similarly in Luke 1:58 Ann's cousins and neighbors are noted by the correct Greek words. The author of Luke was familiar with the both concept of a cousin and used the Greek word for cousin to describe that second generation relationship.

This is quite a good argument. My response is something like this.

Luke only mentions the brothers of Christ once and in that particular verse the focus of the saying in a general comparison between spiritual and natural family in which exact specification of relation is not required so a loose use of 'brother' is adequate. This is particularly true if the saying was originally in Aramaic and the translation results in the confusing use of 'brother'. In the case of 1:58 the exact family relationship is important so it is no surprise that the correct Greek is used. It is important because it shows the relationship between John the Baptist (still a very important figure at the time) and Jesus.

Moreover, in Hebrew it is true that there is no word for cousins and brothers, but cousins are not designated by the word "brother" or "sister". Rather the term "uncle's daughter" (bat-dowd) (Ester 2:7 & 2:15 plus First Samuel 14:50) or "uncle's son" (ben-dowd) (Leviticus25:49, Samuel 14:50, Jeremiah 32:8, 32:9, and 32:12) some similar grammatical construction are used.

Of course it is possible to specify exact relations in Hebrew. This does not change the fact that brother is used for close relations in that language. Eg Genesis 13:8 (Abraham calling Lot his brother). I do not believe that this is disputed by scholars.

Blessings

mostlyharmless

June 2nd 2009, 09:39 AM

She would certainly be no role model. She would have lived in unrepentent sin, in complete violation of Pauline teaching.

St Mary is a role model of complete submission to God, not as a wife. How is abstaining from sexual relations by mutual agreement sin?

And the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, btw

Yes everyone is well aware of that. The question is how much the thought forms of Aramaic, Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek influence the Greek of the NT.

Obsidian

June 2nd 2009, 09:49 AM

Good grief, how many times do I have to cite this passage in a single thread before people will actually read it?

4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control

Alsharad

June 2nd 2009, 10:08 AM

Not that I advocate Dogma as a profound work, but I do have a fondness for this particular quote:

"Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility. " - Rufus

Eeset-Shadowgrl

June 2nd 2009, 10:19 AM

Hello,

I do not believe that you are correct in this matter. What we know of Jesus comes from the Gospels which are written in Greek, not Hebrew. Greek does indeed have a word for cousin (συγγενής syggenēs) which was used in Luke 1:36 to describe Mary's relationship to Ann, mother of John the Baptist.
Uhh...Elizabeth was John's mother. Ann or Anne or Hannah depending on how you want to spell it was Mary's mother. Perhaps that is extraneous to the point you were trying to make. :shrug:

Eeset-Shadowgrl

June 2nd 2009, 10:36 AM

I did read you posts, unfortunately I was unable to find any reference to the source of the facts that you presented. The link you provided had dozens of documents with hundreds of pages. If you could, would provde a reference to a particular source or set of sources? Thanks.
OK, I'll say it as directly as I know how. Ask Jesus. I did. Can you comprehend that? Do I speak plainly enough? Do you believe I am lying? Do you believe I am delusional? Do you not know he lives? What did He give? Knock, seek, I will answer and other invitations. Why do professed believers not take him at his quoted words? Do you dare accuse the Master himself of deceit? I care not what you think of me but I am continually astounded when people state that they believe Jesus is God's only begotten son and then seem to think He is not around anymore. Oh well :shrug:

And yes I have read all those documents and many more. You asked for references because you said that you are not aware of any texts other than the Bible. I was simply providing you a starting place. I was trying to assist but I can't read them for you. Now you want to be led to specific passages. There is much in those documents about Jesus but if you want the specifics of his family life take the questions directly to him. It saves time and is much more reliable.

:flowers:

shunyadragon

June 2nd 2009, 06:42 PM

I understand your view but there is no compelling reason to believe that any of the references to brothers have to be natural children of Mary. I doubt you place any value on the infancy narratives in the gospels either, so you have no reason to believe that Mary and Joseph's marriage was special in any way. It is hard to imagine their marriage was normal if the conception and birth of Jesus was as momentous as reported.

No it is not hard to imagine a marriage at all, In fact the NT endorses the marriage between Joseph and Mary, and says nothing to the contrary.

All the fairly small references to Jesus family fit comfortably within the traditional view of the ever virginity of Mary when examined closely. Preconceptions about the truthfulness of the early historical witness to Mary's virginity tend to determine beliefs here.

Blessings

The fact that Jesus' birth was a virgin birth, the gospels and letters give no hint to the belief that Mary remained a virgin and had no more children. Something this momentous surely should have been reportedm and it was not.

I very much disagree, and the Hebrew argument you presented does not fit the time Jesus lived.

Obsidian

June 2nd 2009, 08:19 PM

Eeset, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that yes, you are delusional.

mostlyharmless

June 2nd 2009, 11:56 PM

I very much disagree, and the Hebrew argument you presented does not fit the time Jesus lived.

I'm not sure what to say. I am not aware of any debate that both the Hebrew and Aramaic of Jesus time uses the word brother with a semantic range than extends to close kinsman. For Greek this is not generally the case, but the question is one of how the underlying though forms affect the translations and hence the use of 'brother' with a more Aramaic semantic range rather than standard Greek.

I would need to go to a seminary to pull up some research papers to provide credible evidence. Sites like Catholic Answers have some articles on the matter.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

The way that the word brother is used in the OT biblical texts is of quite some importance as well because of their extensive use by Jewish people of Jesus period.

The fact that Jesus' birth was a virgin birth, the gospels and letters give no hint to the belief that Mary remained a virgin and had no more children. Something this momentous surely should have been reportedm and it was not.

There are a number of passages that are commonly taken as data that can be used to infer that Mary remained a virgin, as I am sure you are aware. I disagree that Mary remaining a virgin would be reported in the gospels or NT writings. That particular subject is entirely incidental to the purpose of the gospels or the gospel proclamation in the early history of Christianity.

Blessings

joel

June 3rd 2009, 12:29 AM

That particular subject is entirely incidental to the purpose of the gospels or the gospel proclamation in the early history of Christianity.

So what does it matter to us whether Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse?

mostlyharmless

June 3rd 2009, 03:32 AM

Good grief, how many times do I have to cite this passage in a single thread before people will actually read it?

Both RCC and OC teaching on the matter agree that St Mary and St Joseph were never actually married, only betrothed.

mostlyharmless

June 3rd 2009, 04:18 AM

So what does it matter to us whether Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse?

If the every virginity of St Mary is true then the church should teach it to Christians. Why would you want to change this teaching when the evidence against it is not strong and it has been the consistent teaching of the church?

For RCC and OC correct teaching regarding the ever virginity of St Mary is tied into Christology, Scriptural interpretation, the role of saints, and salvation history. It appears that many modern protestants like to attack this teaching as a differentiator from tradition. At least Luther and Calvin were willing to support it.

Eeset-Shadowgrl

June 3rd 2009, 08:49 AM

Eeset, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that yes, you are delusional.
Bless you. I suppose you deny then that Jesus lives? Just curious. :shrug:

Obsidian

June 3rd 2009, 09:10 AM

mostlyharmless

June 3rd 2009, 10:58 AM

Eeset-Shadowgrl

June 3rd 2009, 11:52 AM

oh I see, mostlyharmless, so now the Catholic Church approves of living with people of the opposite sex you aren't married to? Do you think the Jewish culture also approved of such relationships? :lol:

Why on earth would he get engaged to her in the first place if he didn't want to have sex with her -- especially if he were an older guy? That theory is completely outlandish.
In those days marriages were arranged by the parents. In the case of Mary who had no father and who had been given as a child to the service of those who prepared for the coming of the messiah Joseph was selected by the leaders or holy ones o the Essene sect. Joseph originally rejected the idea because he was older and had children by a previous marriage. Joseph experienced or received a visit by an angel and was then obedient. The marriage ceremony took place at Carmel. The life together developed over the years and James, the daughter and Jude were born to them about 10 years after the Master was born. The various documents and positions of the Catholic church do not properly reflect much about Mary and certainly not about her life after Jesus was born. They also do not tell of her being one of 12 virgins set aside, trained, educated and brought up by the holy men of the Essenes. They do not tell of her selection or designation as the one by an angel on the temple steps when she was 12 years old. This took place at sunrise as the 12 were ascending the steps of the temple for their morning devotionals. That particular day it was Mary's turn to be first in the line for it was done each in their turn in a 12 day cycle.

I have confidence this information will receive scoffs. Nonetheless the questions have been asked and I am providing that which I know. Do with it as your heart directs.
:flowers:

Bill the Cat

June 3rd 2009, 11:58 AM

In those days marriages were arranged by the parents. In the case of Mary who had no father and who had been given as a child to the service of those who prepared for the coming of the messiah Joseph was selected by the leaders or holy ones o the Essene sect. Joseph originally rejected the idea because he was older and had children by a previous marriage. Joseph experienced or received a visit by an angel and was then obedient. The marriage ceremony took place at Carmel. The life together developed over the years and James, the daughter and Jude were born to them about 10 years after the Master was born. The various documents and positions of the Catholic church do not properly reflect much about Mary and certainly not about her life after Jesus was born. They also do not tell of her being one of 12 virgins set aside, trained, educated and brought up by the holy men of the Essenes. They do not tell of her selection or designation as the one by an angel on the temple steps when she was 12 years old. This took place at sunrise as the 12 were ascending the steps of the temple for their morning devotionals. That particular day it was Mary's turn to be first in the line for it was done each in their turn in a 12 day cycle.

I have confidence this information will receive scoffs. Nonetheless the questions have been asked and I am providing that which I know. Do with it as your heart directs.
:flowers:

I've honestly never seen this before Eeset. Where did you get this information?

Obsidian

June 3rd 2009, 01:02 PM

Wow! Are you seriously discussing this subject without once having read the other sides position? From your comments I think so. You may think it outlandish but we have Christian writings from the 2nd century onward who disagree with you and who are a lot closer to the situation and do provide reasons for this.

So completely unified church "tradition" after 100 A.D....with the exception of Tertullian, and Jovinian, and Helvidius (and probably others, too, but those are three that I've found right off the bat)...states something that defies common sense, that seems to defy biblical morals, and that remains unrecorded by the Bible -- and you want me to accept it.

No thanks.

joel

June 3rd 2009, 11:02 PM

Both RCC and OC teaching on the matter agree that St Mary and St Joseph were never actually married, only betrothed.
Then why does Luke say that Joseph took Mary as his wife?

"o,o"

June 3rd 2009, 11:23 PM

Hello,

This is quite a good argument. My response is something like this. Luke only mentions the brothers of Christ once and in that particular verse the focus of the saying in a general comparison between spiritual and natural family in which exact specification of relation is not required so a loose use of 'brother' is adequate. This is particularly true if the saying was originally in Aramaic and the translation results in the confusing use of 'brother'. In the case of 1:58 the exact family relationship is important so it is no surprise that the correct Greek is used. It is important because it shows the relationship between John the Baptist (still a very important figure at the time) and Jesus.

I see your point, however I must say I disagree. Here is why.

1) You are of course quite correct that the word brother can be, and often is, used in a non-literal sense by many Biblical authors, Paul in particular. Often it is used to designate individuals with a spiritual bonds or tight emotional links. However, when this is done, there are almost always contextual clues to let the reader know that the word is being used in a broader, non-biological sense. These are lacking in Mark 3:33 and Matthew 12:48. There is nothing in the text or context to suggest that the word brothers is meant in any sense other than its natural, biological sense.

2) To read the words brothers as meaning some non-first generation male relatives actually undercuts the point that the authors of the Gospels where trying to make. The story tells how Jesus held his spiritual family in greater esteem than his biological family. The author mentions just his brothers who were outside but his mother as well. This is strongest possible image of a family both in 1st century Galilee and even today. For Jesus not only to reject his brothers but also his mother in favor of people who were not blood relations was shocking then, as it is now. The image of Jesus rejecting his cousins (or other male relations) is much weaker and less shocking.

Of course it is possible to specify exact relations in Hebrew. This does not change the fact that brother is used for close relations in that language. Eg Genesis 13:8 (Abraham calling Lot his brother). I do not believe that this is disputed by scholars.

Yes, it is not only possible, it occurs quite frequently. In the case of Lot, Genesis refers to him several times as “Abram’s brother’s son” (12:5 and 4:12, ben-akh, with a maqef to emphasis the relation). In the cases of Genesis 13:8, the phrase is not that “we are brothers” but rather that “we are brotherly men” (enoshim akhim), which is descriptive of an uncle and nephew. This is different from Genesis 42:32 where Joseph’s brothers say “we are brothers, sons of one father” (akhim beni abinu) or Genesis 9:25.

mostlyharmless

June 4th 2009, 05:34 AM

I see your point, however I must say I disagree. Here is why.

1) You are of course quite correct that the word brother can be, and often is, used in a non-literal sense by many Biblical authors, Paul in particular. Often it is used to designate individuals with a spiritual bonds or tight emotional links. However, when this is done, there are almost always contextual clues to let the reader know that the word is being used in a broader, non-biological sense.

Assume that Jesus' has 4 close cousins. They come with his mother to see him and he gives this saying to illustrate a point to his disciples. What word would he use to describe them and bring out the force of his saying? The natural word to use in Aramaic or Hebrew would be 'brother'. This is simply correct usage of brother in these languages as the semantic range does extend to close relatives like cousins and half brothers. When translated into Greek the saying would retain the use of the word 'brother' rather than the more technically correct 'cousin' if the translation was done by people with a background in Aramaic or Hebrew. The Septuagint translation has plenty of examples of this. So I do not think there is any great support for natural brothers in this saying. In fact if you look at the saying in other gospels it is often used as evidence that these 'brothers' where not St Mary's children because of the double use of 'his'.

I don't agree with your view that 1st century Galilean view of family would not find rejection of cousins totally shocking. Extended family bonds in such societies are very strong, unlike modern western societies.

Yes, it is not only possible, it occurs quite frequently. In the case of Lot, Genesis refers to him several times as “Abram’s brother’s son” (12:5 and 4:12, ben-akh, with a maqef to emphasis the relation). In the cases of Genesis 13:8, the phrase is not that “we are brothers” but rather that “we are brotherly men” (enoshim akhim), which is descriptive of an uncle and nephew.

I might cease using that one as an example, because I am not aware enough of the Hebrew. In the Septuagint the phrase is translated, ανθρωποι αδελφοι. Literally 'men brothers'. I'm not to sure on how strong the case for this phrase being used as descriptive of uncle and nephew is.

Blessings

"o,o"

June 4th 2009, 09:10 PM

Hello,

Assume that Jesus' has 4 close cousins. They come with his mother to see him and he gives this saying to illustrate a point to his disciples. What word would he use to describe them and bring out the force of his saying? The natural word to use in Aramaic or Hebrew would be 'brother'. This is simply correct usage of brother in these languages as the semantic range does extend to close relatives like cousins and half brothers. When translated into Greek the saying would retain the use of the word 'brother' rather than the more technically correct 'cousin' if the translation was done by people with a background in Aramaic or Hebrew.

I have to disagree. The phrase used in the Hebrew scriptures for this situation is would sons of his or her brother. Nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures is the word Hebrew word brother used to mean cousins. Moreover, since the Gospels are written in Greek, the natural word would be the one used by Luke, συγγενής (syggenēs). There is also a Greek term for half-brother, homomhtros adelphos.

The Septuagint translation has plenty of examples of this. So I do not think there is any great support for natural brothers in this saying. In fact if you look at the saying in other gospels it is often used as evidence that these 'brothers' where not St Mary's children because of the double use of 'his'.

I am sorry but I am unfamiliar with these examples, could you provide the citations to the passages in question.

I don't agree with your view that 1st century Galilean view of family would not find rejection of cousins totally shocking. Extended family bonds in such societies are very strong, unlike modern western societies.

You are of course correct but what I said was "less shocking" and since the point of the passage is to provide maximum contrast - shock, the interpretation of brothers as cousins undercuts that objective. Additionally, there is nothing in the text or context to suggest any reading other than a literal one.

I might cease using that one as an example, because I am not aware enough of the Hebrew. In the Septuagint the phrase is translated, ανθρωποι αδελφοι. Literally 'men brothers'. I'm not to sure on how strong the case for this phrase being used as descriptive of uncle and nephew is.

I am more than happy to not use that example. I of course did not introduce it into the discussion.

However, I might add there are other more definite references to Jesus' brothers. There are of course Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 where Jesus four brother are mentioned by name.

Paul refers several times to Jesus brothers, most notably in First Corinthians 9:5. He also refers specifically the James as the brother of Jesus (e.g. First Galatians 1:19). Now of course Paul routinely uses the terms brother and sister figuratively to his fellow Christians. However, Josephus also mentions James as Jesus' brother and does so in a context that can only be understood as biological and does not use the terms either half-brother or cousin. Jerome quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews where James is also noted as a brother of Jesus.

I would argue that based on the available evidence, the preponderance of which favors James as being a full, biological brother of Jesus, if not the other three.

shunyadragon

June 6th 2009, 07:38 AM

Hello,

I have to disagree. The phrase used in the Hebrew scriptures for this situation is would sons of his or her brother. Nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures is the word Hebrew word brother used to mean cousins. Moreover, since the Gospels are written in Greek, the natural word would be the one used by Luke, συγγενής (syggenēs). There is also a Greek term for half-brother, homomhtros adelphos.

I am sorry but I am unfamiliar with these examples, could you provide the citations to the passages in question.

You are of course correct but what I said was "less shocking" and since the point of the passage is to provide maximum contrast - shock, the interpretation of brothers as cousins undercuts that objective. Additionally, there is nothing in the text or context to suggest any reading other than a literal one.

I am more than happy to not use that example. I of course did not introduce it into the discussion.

However, I might add there are other more definite references to Jesus' brothers. There are of course Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 where Jesus four brother are mentioned by name.

Paul refers several times to Jesus brothers, most notably in First Corinthians 9:5. He also refers specifically the James as the brother of Jesus (e.g. First Galatians 1:19). Now of course Paul routinely uses the terms brother and sister figuratively to his fellow Christians. However, Josephus also mentions James as Jesus' brother and does so in a context that can only be understood as biological and does not use the terms either half-brother or cousin. Jerome quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews where James is also noted as a brother of Jesus.

I would argue that based on the available evidence, the preponderance of which favors James as being a full, biological brother of Jesus, if not the other three.

Good post and I agree with your conclusions.

"o,o"

June 6th 2009, 01:28 PM

Hello,

Good post and I agree with your conclusions.

Thank you for your kind posting.

Obsidian

June 6th 2009, 09:50 PM

Mr. Face-Emoticon, I don't understand what you are suggesting. Why would they use the term "brother" instead of half-brother? I can understand unbelievers rejecting the virgin birth, but why would believers use the inaccurate term?

stephen goswami

June 9th 2009, 01:04 AM

At first in Adam’s time people married sisters. But that was bad genetically. As marriage has many meanings, material and spiritual, intercourse has many meanings too. Every type of intercourse generate result be it physical, mental (thought, technology, social etc.). Intercourses between far type of people or thought produce better hybrid results. More far, the better. We Indians are more spiritual to understand spiritual marriage and intercourse. That is impossible for flesh obsessed people

stephen goswami

June 9th 2009, 01:26 AM

I think I should be allowed to marry my sister as long as I don't taint our marriage with sex.

At first in Adam’s time people married sisters. But that was bad genetically. As marriage has many meanings, material and spiritual, intercourse has many meanings too. Every type of intercourse generate result be it physical, mental (thought, technology, social etc.). Intercourses between far type of people or thought produce better hybrid results. More far, the better. We Indians are more spiritual to understand spiritual marriage and intercourse. That is impossible for flesh obsessed people

stephen goswami

June 9th 2009, 03:07 AM

[quote= Yes, it is not only possible, it occurs quite frequently. In the case of Lot, Genesis refers to him several times as “Abram’s brother’s son” (12:5 and 4:12, ben-akh, with a maqef to emphasis the relation). In the cases of Genesis 13:8, the phrase is not that “we are brothers” but rather that “we are brotherly men” (enoshim akhim), which is descriptive of an uncle and nephew. This is different from Genesis 42:32 where Joseph’s brothers say “we are brothers, sons of one father” (akhim beni abinu) or Genesis 9:25.[/quote]

Their existence depends on science and technology, all solely based on reason, not on fossilized scriptures. But on the most important spiritual and religious matters they reject reason to depend on manmade books. Christ himself encouraged reason by preaching through parables and similes. He teaching of chastity (spiritual love) and absolute love must be the guide of us in every field. Whatever contradicts it must be ignored. If any book, even apostles preach anything contrary it must be abhorred. He lives and is with us, not the apostles. If I have to obey bible then I have to sacrifice children and wage war against infidels like Muslims. Certainly Christ fulfilled all scriptures in this way. An angry father orders mother or older sibling to thrash a delinquent junior. But knowing that thrashing will worsen the case, mother or brother disobeys and patiently reform him by love instead of thrashing. Actually they fulfilled father’s order while disobeying him literally. Every one’s existence including Devil is on Love, bonding his soul parts together. When we obey love we obey the devil, our worldly ruler truly, even disobeying him literally. Christ’s fulfillment of all testaments is in this sense. He actually disobeyed O.T. to love and pardon sinners. By reason (given in original post) it is impossible that most devout God-fearing Joseph would amorously touch Mary who bore God’s son. Even now husbands of ladies touched and anointed by God can’t do it, even if the lady invites.

RBerman

June 9th 2009, 03:56 PM

If I have to obey bible then I have to sacrifice children and wage war against infidels like Muslims. Certainly Christ fulfilled all scriptures in this way....He actually disobeyed O.T. to love and pardon sinners. By reason (given in original post) it is impossible that most devout God-fearing Joseph would amorously touch Mary who bore God’s son. Even now husbands of ladies touched and anointed by God can’t do it, even if the lady invites.
Stephen, please get into a church that teaches the Bible. Jesus never disobeyed the Old Testament, though he did disobey the Pharisees, who had added their own rules to the Bible. The Bible does not say that you must sacrifice your children or wage war against unbelievers. The Bible does not say that Joseph did not "amorously touch Mary."

stephen goswami

June 11th 2009, 02:53 AM

Stephen, please get into a church that teaches the Bible. Jesus never disobeyed the Old Testament, though he did disobey the Pharisees, who had added their own rules to the Bible. The Bible does not say that you must sacrifice your children or wage war against unbelievers. The Bible does not say that Joseph did not "amorously touch Mary."
Dear RBerman
I had learned bible 50 years in various churches and 5 years in catholic seminary. Now I am in a Pentecostal church. I no longer want to know bible as that cant save my soul by love-integrating it. I want to know Christ, who can teach me to do it. And he has doing it through my Muslim ministry.
As our most important reason found saving sciences and technologies so reason finds that Joseph did not touch Mary amorously. The Bible does say that you must sacrifice your children or wage war against unbelievers. Abraham did that.

Obsidian

June 11th 2009, 04:50 PM

shunyadragon

June 14th 2009, 06:18 PM

stephen goswami

June 15th 2009, 07:20 AM

Stephen, maybe you should have a look at Colossians 2:18-23 and stop listening to the voices/feelings you believe to be the Holy Spirit. And no, Abraham did not sacrifice any children, or wage any wars based on theology, for that matter.

If I have not listened to the voice in my mind I would not have come to Christ. Still I have to listen to it for everyday guidances in everyday crises.
Abraham would have sacrificed his son, if he was not stopped. That was a common practice that time.
So Abraham warred disobeying his God!

stephen goswami

June 22nd 2009, 06:57 AM

oh I see, mostlyharmless, so now the Catholic Church approves of living with people of the opposite sex you aren't married to? Do you think the Jewish culture also approved of such relationships? :lol:

Why on earth would he get engaged to her in the first place if he didn't want to have sex with her -- especially if he were an older guy? That theory is completely outlandish.

From ants to elephants procreate by sex. But we are spirit and have spiritual procreative power. Christians are created by this and create other believers by this. In our Indian religious circle there had been many marriages without consummation but most fecund by begetting many spiritual children. You place your bible (compiled by Catholic Church) above God, the spiritual love principle,
Humanity especially Europeans are obsessed with sex. But it can’t go against psychological laws which I had stated in David and Uria episode. David, his supreme commander, could not force Uria to copulate with Bathsheba even at death threat. Urea rather embraced death rather than sexually dishonor his king. Catholic church presented bible can’t go against psychological laws.
There are many levels obedience to Heavenly Father, the democratic unity of heavenly parents. Since He is spirit, spiritual obedience is the highest obedience.

RBerman

June 22nd 2009, 10:14 AM

Stephen, your comments continue to bear no resemblance to Christianity. I'm sorry to hear that you think you can know God apart from the Bible. In this respect, you are no different than a Hindu or Buddhist, relying on personal revelation from God instead of obeying God's Word, the Bible.

Pilgrim

June 22nd 2009, 10:19 AM

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually invited him to preach.

RBerman

June 22nd 2009, 12:03 PM

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually invited him to preach.
There are unfortunately many churches in America where every week the sermon contains no references to Scripture. Some of them are quite large.

Obsidian

June 22nd 2009, 12:35 PM

If you hate the physical world so much, why don't you just kill your body and go to heaven? And I'm not even trying to be mean; I'm just being logical. Your theology sucks, stephen. And considering you have already acknowledged that many Indians perform the practice you are advocating, it's obvious that you have borrowed a pagan belief system. You'd rather believe in Indian customs and the feelings in your head than in the inspired, written words of God's apostles? Repent!

John Goddard

June 22nd 2009, 12:58 PM

From ants to elephants procreate by sex. But we are spirit and have spiritual procreative power. Christians are created by this and create other believers by this. In our Indian religious circle there had been many marriages without consummation but most fecund by begetting many spiritual children. You place your bible (compiled by Catholic Church) above God, the spiritual love principle,
Humanity especially Europeans are obsessed with sex. But it can’t go against psychological laws which I had stated in David and Uria episode. David, his supreme commander, could not force Uria to copulate with Bathsheba even at death threat. Urea rather embraced death rather than sexually dishonor his king. Catholic church presented bible can’t go against psychological laws.
There are many levels obedience to Heavenly Father, the democratic unity of heavenly parents. Since He is spirit, spiritual obedience is the highest obedience.

Jesus was that son of David and Bathsheba who died for David's sin, resurrected into the womb of Mary.

So as far as I care Mary never needed to have sex. But it's not like procreation from sex "taints" anything unless you think your own existence from sex is tainted.

That's just weird.

Eeset-Shadowgrl

June 22nd 2009, 02:36 PM

I've honestly never seen this before Eeset. Where did you get this information?
Bill I didn't notice this earlier. You will not find that information on the web nor in any library or collection of writings that is open to the public. Those who are guardians of it have not yet released it and I do not know when they will though I suspect the time is approaching. I appreciate that you will probably either disbelieve what I offered or at least be highly skeptical. There is nothing I can do personally to overcome that. Perhaps I should not have posted it but I felt at the time that it made sense to do so. I'll let you know as soon as I learn source materials are made public.

stephen goswami

June 24th 2009, 05:17 AM

Jesus was that son of David and Bathsheba who died for David's sin, resurrected into the womb of Mary.

So as far as I care Mary never needed to have sex. But it's not like procreation from sex "taints" anything unless you think your own existence from sex is tainted.

That's just weird.
What is a taint? It is an anomaly. A white spot in a black cloth is a taint as a black spot is in a white cloth. Ants are not tainted by sex compulsion. That is natural to them. But I am a spirit imprisoned in a body. We are created by spiritual procreation and destined to create spiritually too, while this perishable body is made by animal procreation. Animal like procreation is lower than spiritual procreation so it is a anomaly, a taint.

RBerman

June 24th 2009, 09:18 AM

What is a taint? It is an anomaly. A white spot in a black cloth is a taint as a black spot is in a white cloth. Ants are not tainted by sex compulsion. That is natural to them. But I am a spirit imprisoned in a body. We are created by spiritual procreation and destined to create spiritually too, while this perishable body is made by animal procreation. Animal like procreation is lower than spiritual procreation so it is a anomaly, a taint.

The philosophy you are espousing is gnosticism, the idea that the body is a prison for the soul, and that things associated with the body, like hunger, or fatigue or sexual urges, are impure in some sense. This is not a Christian belief; in fact, the book of 1 John in the Bible was written against an early form of this belief. You really need to sit under good Christian teaching rather than trying to be a teacher yourself, because you are not teaching Christianity. You are teaching paganism.

John Goddard

June 24th 2009, 09:28 AM

stephen goswami

June 29th 2009, 10:47 AM

Well as far as I know, you would not be here right now saying anything except for some "tainted" sex to get you here. Fornication is tainted sex, not normal procreation between married couples.

For many taints of sin-weakness I fell from heaven, you too. I am sorry to be here in this tainted world. But as long as I stay here I must strive for following Christ fully to get back to heaven.

John Goddard

June 29th 2009, 10:56 AM

For many taints of sin-weakness I fell from heaven, you too. I am sorry to be here in this tainted world. But as long as I stay here I must strive for following Christ fully to get back to heaven.

So it seems you believe in a type of reincarnation, having sinned in a former life in heaven and being kicked out of it, or something like that?

Obsidian

June 29th 2009, 07:03 PM

Maybe you should castrate yourself. While you're at it, you could only eat bread and water and maybe sleep on a rock. Then God would be truly pleased.

stephen goswami

June 30th 2009, 10:26 AM

So it seems you believe in a type of reincarnation, having sinned in a former life in heaven and being kicked out of it, or something like that?

Christ told it in prodigal son story that we have fallen from heaven. also revelation in 12-7 tells that we are the heaven fallen devil's horde.

stephen goswami

June 30th 2009, 10:28 AM

Maybe you should castrate yourself. While you're at it, you could only eat bread and water and maybe sleep on a rock. Then God would be truly pleased.

origen did it. but real faith in christ castrates believers.

Eeset-Shadowgrl

June 30th 2009, 10:32 AM

origen did it. but real faith in christ castrates believers.
Only the men. :wink:

Obsidian

June 30th 2009, 10:41 AM

I can see that my attempt at reverse psychology has failed

RBerman

July 1st 2009, 01:17 AM

Christ told it in prodigal son story that we have fallen from heaven.
Not true.
also revelation in 12-7 tells that we are the heaven fallen devil's horde.
Not true.

Please stop trying to teach the Bible, and get into a church where you can be taught yourself.

stephen goswami

July 4th 2009, 05:21 AM

Not true.

Not true.

Please stop trying to teach the Bible, and get into a church where you can be taught yourself.

So you believe that God created our souls during fertilization here in this world given to Devil, among these godless people, ghettos, slums where only a few survive and majority goes to hell!
thank for your advice. As Christ is my authority i need other authority. He is suplying my day to day strength

RBerman

July 4th 2009, 08:55 AM

So you believe that God created our souls during fertilization here in this world given to Devil, among these godless people, ghettos, slums where only a few survive and majority goes to hell!

I don't know what "fertilization" you are talking about, but I do believe, based on what Christ and Paul say, that the majority are going to Hell.

thank for your advice. As Christ is my authority i need other authority. He is suplying my day to day strength
If you reject the Bible, I don't know who you're really interacting with, but it's not Christ, who never treated the Bible with the scorn that you do.

joel

July 6th 2009, 02:04 PM

So you believe that God created our souls during fertilization here in this world given to Devil, among these godless people, ghettos, slums where only a few survive and majority goes to hell!

I think the traducian view of the soul is most likely. That is, that the only human soul created (i.e., special creation) by God was Adam's (and maybe Eve's), and that all other human souls are procreated by their parents.

stephen goswami

July 8th 2009, 02:42 AM

I think the traducian view of the soul is most likely. That is, that the only human soul created (i.e., special creation) by God was Adam's (and maybe Eve's), and that all other human souls are procreated by their parents.

That view leads to atheism, as the animal parents also generate animals like us. No! our parents can neither generate our body nor our soul by themselves. They are a part of a ancient process.
Animals have no soul, as during exorcising I had never experienced animal souls. No one had. So killing animal is no sin. But killing human is certainly is. As that soul can live on to react. Only God can create soul as God is spirit.

joel

July 8th 2009, 02:00 PM

That view leads to atheism, as the animal parents also generate animals like us. No!

That's not what I said. I said human parents procreate human offspring. Which are both body and soul.

Animals have no soul, as during exorcising I had never experienced animal souls. No one had. So killing animal is no sin. But killing human is certainly is. As that soul can live on to react. Only God can create soul as God is spirit.

This does not conflict with the traducian view. Yes, only God can (specially) create a soul. The act of human parents is not special creation, but procreation.

stephen goswami

July 11th 2009, 08:59 AM

That's not what I said. I said human parents procreate human offspring. Which are both body and soul.

This does not conflict with the traducian view. Yes, only God can (specially) create a soul. The act of human parents is not special creation, but procreation.

So ultimately creation of our soul is the responsibility of God, by whatever medium our soul is created. Everyone is responsible for his creation by whatever agency. If the created soul go to everlasting torment; that is also His responsibility. So God becomes a most heinous conception as Lenin said.
Actually the law of love is the omnipotent God. It constantly creates soul by uniting and love-bonding spiritual atoms (Indian philosophy) in spiritual sphere and creates atoms to universe by uniting material quarks.
But when old, pride the anti-love disintegrator, enters in everything-soul, society, civilization etc. so internal and external strife disintegrates all. But if the disintegrating soul repents and follows Christ to cross- atonement, it is regenerated-reintegrated and gets new life

RBerman

July 11th 2009, 04:17 PM

stephen goswami

August 31st 2009, 06:23 AM

That's the problem, Stephen. You are confusing the teachings of Indian philosophy with those of Christianity. You grant the words of the mass-murdering atheist Lenin more credibility than you grant God's own words in the Bible. Repent, and place yourself under the discipleship of a Christ-centered, Bible-teaching church.

I am late in answering due sickness and other engagements.
I neither believed in my atheist father’s doctrines nor in Lenin’s. But I want to show what circumstances forced them to that doctrine.
If day after day the holy terror of a God, who sends his own creation to eternal torment, is forced down their throat, reaction must be such. Fortunately my father believed in Christ and started praying 3 months before death due to many people’s prayers.
Christian theology is evolving forever to cope with changing times. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been Protestants. As Thomas Aquinas’s theology is influenced by Greek philosophy prevalent then, so my theology is also influenced by Indian philosophy. You are free to malign it as confusion. You have freedom of expression as me. But fruits are proving my position.
For 30 years I was in R.C. Church centered on consecrated bread, rituals and images and 5 years theology course. Seeing the suicidal emptiness of that church and theology, I left and started obeying living Christ through Muslim evangelization. Then my life became worth living. Now I visit protestant churches to share this Christ. Fossilized R.C. church doesn’t allow. They prefer an inert material Christ.
I’ll rather call you to go directly to living Christ like me and enliven the “Ichabod”(God has left) churches by sharing that Christ. Churches can’t save. Only Christ can.

ASquared

August 31st 2009, 07:40 AM

wow, somehow this thread has gotten way off topic. it's pretty interesting tho. it looks loke somewhere along the line we got hung up on the details. does it really matter how God created souls? isn't it enough to say He did it? further, can we really understand the how, as no man has created anything eternal?

to the thread, personally I think the poster is way off. while I sure Mary and Joseph didn't "know" each other before Christ's birth, to say that they remained celebate just doesn't make any sense. I don't care how holy they were, but in this life, it's impossible for a human being to be rid of their urges or to fully control them. why would God place such a burden on them?

as to celibacy, Paul says that, if a man can bear it, it's better for him so that he may better serve the Lord. this implies that not every one CAN bear it, or that it is a usual state of being. in fact, you could say that those who can bear the burden of celibacy are few in number.

I can speak from experience when I say that in marriage, your focus becomes your family. this is how it should be, but the fact is you can't devote as much time to the Lord's service, unless you have a wife with the same call and conviction as you.

stephen goswami

September 2nd 2009, 03:35 AM

. does it really matter how God created souls? isn't it enough to say He did it? further, can we really understand the how, as no man has created anything eternal?

It matters as we have to enter into Heavenly Father, the democratic unity of heavenly parents. Christ meant it when he called us to be His children. The old ‘God’ conception based on despot leader king must be elevated now to higher democratic leadership. Now fallen man cant create anything eternal but when we enter into heaven we will regain that power.

, it's impossible for a human being to be rid of their urges or to fully control them. why would God place such a burden on them?
Every urge like anger, vengeance, pride, greed etc. is difficult to control too. To be a truly responsible parent and husband is also impossible.
as to celibacy, Paul says that, if a man can bear it, it's better for him so that he may better serve the Lord. this implies that not every one CAN bear it, or that it is a usual state of being. in fact, you could say that those who can bear the burden of celibacy are few in number.

Those who follow Christ is also few in number too.

I can speak from experience when I say that in marriage, your focus becomes your family. .

You always think marriage as sex acording to european custom. but spiritual marriage is not only lawful but superior and more fecund. Mary and Joseph's marriage was that. When one is in spirit carnal connection falls away. It is oriental thought.

The Curtmudgeon

September 2nd 2009, 02:34 PM

stephen goswami

September 7th 2009, 08:10 AM

Stephen, since it was God Himself who told our first parents, "Be fruitful and multiply," and since nowhere in the Bible is a non-physical or "spiritual" marriage mentioned, much less commended, what is your basis for considering that the latter is superior to a normal, sexual marriage?

The (not to be taken as saying that marriage is only sex, but merely that sex is a definite part of marriage) Curtmudgeon

Did Jesus tell it? His fruitfulness was certainly of spiritual kind. Never carnal. when he mentions marriage it is spiritual marriage.
Problem with European people is that they take Jewish no-soul scripture (pre Persian captivity period)and it’s god as the true God. This is anti thesis of christ’s teaching. If I take them I lose Christ. He has saved me no jewish god.

eudyptes

September 7th 2009, 09:27 AM

Did Jesus tell it? His fruitfulness was certainly of spiritual kind. Never carnal. when he mentions marriage it is spiritual marriage.
Problem with European people is that they take Jewish no-soul scripture (pre Persian captivity period)and it’s god as the true God. This is anti thesis of christ’s teaching. If I take them I lose Christ. He has saved me no jewish god.

So..if I understand you correctly....you disregard the Old Testament? In fact you're claiming that following the old testament causes you to lose salvation?

I'm hoping I misunderstood you...since Jesus quoted and used the Old Testament in His teaching.......

ASquared

September 8th 2009, 08:14 AM

well, we should be able to settle the matter very simply. does God, in the Bible, command men and women to be celibate? the answer is no, He doesn't. Steven, you show me one verse where celibacy is commanded, not suggested, and I could accept that your argument might be valid. until then, stop spreading your particular blend of snycretistic heresy, it really is sickening.

The Curtmudgeon

September 8th 2009, 02:29 PM

Did Jesus tell it? His fruitfulness was certainly of spiritual kind. Never carnal. when he mentions marriage it is spiritual marriage.

Just because Jesus doesn't talk about sex, doesn't mean that He spoke only of "spiritual" marriage.

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Note: not "one spirit," but "one flesh". This is not "spiritual" marriage.

Problem with European people is that they take Jewish no-soul scripture (pre Persian captivity period)and it’s god as the true God. This is anti thesis of christ’s teaching. If I take them I lose Christ. He has saved me no jewish god.

You are aware that Jesus was a Jew, and all the Apostles were Jews, and all the writers of the New Testament (except possibly Luke) were Jews, right?

And that Jesus said,
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This "law and prophets" of which Jesus spoke is the Old Testament, the very book that tells us about that "Jewish God" you refuse. If you don't understand Jesus' relationship to the "Jewish God" of the OT, then you don't understand Jesus or His mission.

When Jesus said,
I and [my] Father are one.
the Father He spoke of as being one with, is that same OT "Jewish God" you refuse.

The (you really need to read the Bible in prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide you) Curtmudgeon

stephen goswami

September 14th 2009, 06:48 AM

Just because Jesus doesn't talk about sex, doesn't mean that He spoke only of "spiritual" marriage.

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Note: not "one spirit," but "one flesh". This is not "spiritual" marriage.

You are aware that Jesus was a Jew, and all the Apostles were Jews, and all the writers of the New Testament (except possibly Luke) were Jews, right?

And that Jesus said,
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This "law and prophets" of which Jesus spoke is the Old Testament, the very book that tells us about that "Jewish God" you refuse. If you don't understand Jesus' relationship to the "Jewish God" of the OT, then you don't understand Jesus or His mission.

When Jesus said,
I and [my] Father are one.
the Father He spoke of as being one with, is that same OT "Jewish God" you refuse.

The (you really need to read the Bible in prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide you) Curtmudgeon

I, an Indian with background of non-violence, was saved by nothing but the love-message of Christ. Absolute love Heavenly Father is my destination. Leaving the Hindu warrior gods in disgust I shall not fall to Jew’s warrior god. If I do I fall from absolute Love. Catholic Church compiled, interpolated and edited bible has not saved me. Christ living today too has saved me.
The real identity of Christ is son of God and apostles’ identity was his follower irrespective of the race of birth. Any other identity will make discrimination and division.
Christ came to really fulfill as in post Love fulfills all laws and commands (Rom13, 8-10) and the paradox of Christ.

headheart

September 14th 2009, 07:08 AM

Line 'em up, shoot 'em down.

eudyptes

September 14th 2009, 07:51 AM

I, an Indian with background of non-violence, was saved by nothing but the love-message of Christ. Absolute love Heavenly Father is my destination. Leaving the Hindu warrior gods in disgust I shall not fall to Jew’s warrior god. If I do I fall from absolute Love. Catholic Church compiled, interpolated and edited bible has not saved me. Christ living today too has saved me.
The real identity of Christ is son of God and apostles’ identity was his follower irrespective of the race of birth. Any other identity will make discrimination and division.
Christ came to really fulfill as in post Love fulfills all laws and commands (Rom13, 8-10) and the paradox of Christ.

In other words...ignore the Bible when it doesn't fit what you want to believe...and make up your own thing to fit what you you want? At least that's what it sounds like you're saying.

headheart

September 14th 2009, 09:17 AM

Welcome to Unorthodox Theology. :)

Sortalike going on over to Theology and saying...'attend to the Bible as it always fits with what you believe...and conform your own things to exactly what it teaches? At least that's what it sounds like you're saying. ;)

stephen goswami

September 18th 2009, 09:04 AM

In other words...ignore the Bible when it doesn't fit what you want to believe...and make up your own thing to fit what you you want? At least that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Certainly! That is the rule of the people. No one can believe blindly. If we do that will be destructive fanatism. Everyone takes every knowledge in his own perspective; otherwise it is useless to him.
You can prove all contradictory things by contradictory verses of the bible. There were many bloody fights by doctors of scriptures, in the past for these contradictions. Only Christ guided reason can guide us in this mess..

headheart

September 18th 2009, 12:36 PM

stephen goswami

September 21st 2009, 07:17 AM

Dear Stephen,

I think what frightened me off it in the beginning was the way it seemed to almost know exactly what I was thinking. If you get a chance you might want to get a copy of John D. Woodbridge's - 'Authority of the Bible'. When you get it please send it to me, I only read FF Bruce's book about the N.T. manuscripts and am working through another by John Blanchard.
Of the following three books, which one would you say is most reliable --- The New Testament, The Old Testament or the Q'uran ?

HM Schmeegle

In my remote Indian place I may not be able to get those books. But that is no problem as I have living Christ who is becoming. Certainly the N.T is nearer the truth Christ preached as understood in the mind of ancient people of a bygone culture. Communal Quran is just an image of communal O.T.