Posted on 12/26/2005 4:14:15 PM PST by hiho hiho
Can Jesus be the son of God and Joseph?
At Christmas, Christians celebrate the birth of God's only son. Some believers, however, wonder if Jesus Christ is God's son only. The ancient "illegitimacy tradition" and its modern proponents propose that Jesus may have had a human father. That idea upsets one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith—the virgin conception. But it's entirely in keeping with more essential tenets: Jesus' role as the Messiah, and God's love for the poor and downtrodden. What's more, the illegitimacy tradition responds to many strange utterances about Jesus' birth in the Scriptures themselves.
---------
Can a loyal Christian believe that Christ was not born of a biological virgin? Perhaps it's worth posing a different question: Why is church authority so intent upon Mary's virginity as a historical fact? Would Jesus be any less God's son if he had an earthly father? The central message of the Gospel is that God raised up and redeemed his servant from death by crucifixion—the Roman style of execution reserved for the lowest of the low. Why couldn't God have sent the same message of divine solidarity with the world's outcasts by making a Messiah out of a man whose conception was also taboo?
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Aren't you sweet! I wish I had the guts to ping to your post a FReeper who thinks I'm proud of being full of it.
Well, that certainly is an ingenious interpretation. I always thought that the central message of the Gospel was that God came to earth, took upon himself the sins of the world, suffered death on the cross, and rose again the third day.
Some people point to this as evidence that Joseph did have marital relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, It's as easy enough assumption to make in English, where "until" implies that the action was subsequently done. "I didn't learn to read until I was nine" would be taken to mean, "When I was nine, I did learn to read."
However, that's not the way it works in ancient Greek and Hebrew.
The word "until" (Greek, heos) indicated that an act did not occur up to a certain point; it did not imply, as it does today, that the act later took place
In Genesis 8:7 Noah lets out a raven, which is said not to return to the ark "until" the waters had dried up from the face of the earth. In fact, the raven never returned at all, even after the waters had dried up
In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul instructs Timothy to attend to reading, exhortation, and teaching "until I arrive," but has any Christian understood Paul to mean that Timothy should ignore Paul's exhortation and teaching after his visit?
In 2 Samuel 6:23 we are told that Michal, the daughter of Saul, "had no children until the day of her death." Surely this does not imply that she gave birth to children after she died!
These words can sometimes be used to mean exactly the same as the English word "until," but as I have illustrated, that's not always the case.
Anyway, if you really understood the unspeakably intimate relationship that Mary had with God in order to become the mother of His Son, --- well, how could Joseph sleep with her after that? It would be like touching the Ark of the Covenant. He would tremble even to think it. And it seems gross and offensive that God who "begot" Jesus in the womb of Mary, would say to St. Joseph, "Here, I had her and I'm through with her; you can have her now."
The concept of Jesus being born without sin, without the stain of the descendants of Adam (Cain), is fundamental to His purity as the Son of God.
Would the idea of an earthly father not be the most damaging idea to Christianity?
Only if someone found the body.
Strong's Number 2193 matches the Greek heos ; It is used as a conjunction in time indicating a change in action. I address only the NT
Anyway, if you really understood the unspeakably intimate relationship that Mary had with God in order to become the mother of His Son, --- well, how could Joseph sleep with her after that? It would be like touching the Ark of the Covenant. He would tremble even to think it. And it seems gross and offensive that God who "begot" Jesus in the womb of Mary, would say to St. Joseph, "Here, I had her and I'm through with her; you can have her now."
This is an appeal to emotions based on some Gnostic belief.
It does not follow from the plain text.
I believe that if G-d had wanted any other understanding other than the plain text ;
it would have been in the plain text. As it is G-d's Holy Word.
b'shem Y'shua
If that were the case they would be stepbrothers.. not half brothers. But they are half brothers because Mary did have other children and it is explicitly mentioned in scripture. The fact that the Roman Church does not want this to be does not change the simple fact that it is.
Even Ignatius, writing to the Apostle John in the first century alludes to the "Venerable James" very Christ like in appearance, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb.
Hegesippus, a second century Christian Chronicler, writes that James was the Lord's brother, holy from his mother's womb. He calls the grandsons of Jude kindred of the Lord, and says that Jude was the brother of Jesus according to the flesh.
Jesus was a brother to at least six siblings.....four boys mentioned in scripture and at least two sisters, all natural children of Joseph and Mary. Jesus was obviously the eldest.
No.... I'm not.
Haven't you ever read any of my posts? ;o)
You've got better things to think about than greasing the hand-hold of some pygmy trying to pull you down.
Incorrect. Nowhere does Scripture describe the Blessed Virgin Mary giving birth to any children other than Jesus.
The fact that the Roman Church does not want this to be does not change the simple fact that it is.
Incorrect. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, hardly members of the "Roman Church", all believed in and taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to a single child and remained a perpetual virgin. The attempt to manipulate the truth regarding the "brothers and sisters" of Christ is a relatively recent phenomenon engaged in by those who possess a deficient knowledge of Scripture, Jewish custom and language.
Jesus was a brother to at least six siblings.....four boys mentioned in scripture and at least two sisters, all natural children of Joseph and Mary. Jesus was obviously the eldest.
Incorrect. I suggest you provide the references from Scripture which "prove" your false assertions. You won't be able to.
A graduate of seminary? This is why I never went. A complete waste of money.
This merger of liberation and feminist theology is what happens when a "person with an agenda" moves from hippie drum circles to a seminary that rather than preach the Faith once Delivered reinforces that agenda.
"I believe that if G-d had wanted any other understanding other than the plain text; it would have been in the plain text."
It is quite possible to read the plain text and be baffled, or understand it incorrectly.
Which is the reason we chose him as the patron of our little church here.
BTW, we also hold the Joseph on his second marriage theory.
This is what happens when the general public loses its cultural moorings. Common knowledge about the meaning of the birth of christ, the foretelling of his coming for a thousand years and the prehistory of the middle east (there was no islam back then) is gone with the wind.
Universities don't teach the facts - only politically correct history that has been sanitized and homogenized by the secular humanists.
The coming of christ was foretold by jewish prophets and other wise men for a thousand years. Ancient prehistory of the culture and religions of the middle east shows the hand of God in everysphere of human activity. The fight to secure the middle easat for Yahweh, the ethnic cleansing of the followers of Baal and other Gods and other prehistoric topics are now only considered to be a childs mythology. The archaeological record is being ignored and reburied. The facts of the middle eastern prehistory are ignored by many and misinterpreted by those who would erase miracle of the birth of christ.
The ECUSA has defaulted to the common secular culture to provide the substrate for its message and cultural moorings. The ECUSA belongs to Caesar and is a part of the body of christ that needs to be amputated before the rot spreads any further.
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I see.
Then I expect you would be telling the truth....but you got to admit...makes for a great story that has had incredibly long legs!!
The problem arises because of the King James translation -- in the 17th century, "until" did not imply that the eventuality ever happened, it just was a point in time.
What makes this clearer for modern English speakers is a surviving usage: "She never used tobacco in any form until her dying day." That does NOT mean she started smoking or dipping after her death!
LOL!
I look at the virginity of Mary as alot of to-do about nothing. All that SHOULD matter is that she was a virgin before Jesus' conception. Whether she was AFTER Jesus just doesn't make one whit of difference to me.
(if she dipped or smoked, who could blame her??!) :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.