Posted on 12/21/2010 7:29:01 AM PST by marshmallow
Over the last fortnight, many of us will have been enjoying the familiar delights of the school Nativity play, sharing the excitement that a new generation of children always brings to it.
Their costumes may be fashioned from blankets, tea-towels and old dressing-gown cords but you can see from their rapt expressions that the Christmas Story has lost none of its power and magic.
With Mother and the Christ Child holding centre stage, the final tableau, helped perhaps by a bit of prompting from parents and teachers, slowly assembles. On come the shepherds, earnestly clutching their crooks and toy lambs, closely followed by the three Wise Men, a riot of colour and gold gift-wrap.
It’s such a familiar and enduring image that most of us can conjure it from memory in a moment. But it’s an image that I believe runs the real risk of overlooking the most important character of all, an individual whose vital role in shaping the Christian message is downplayed and yet whose story couldn’t be more important, or more significant, in today’s society.
You’ll normally find him in the second row, slightly hidden by Mary or a particularly large King, maybe fiddling with his false beard or tugging nervously with his head-dress. His name, of course, is Joseph, a vital character of any Nativity story you would think. But ask yourself one thing. In all honesty, whoever remembers who played Joseph?
Joseph’s extraordinary contribution to the Nativity story and to Christianity itself has been underplayed for centuries but it is my hope that it will be overlooked no longer, for his importance hinges on the critical decision he took, which holds such a powerful message for our own time.
Joseph’s mind must have been in turmoil. The initial sense of shock would have been palpable.......
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
but but, I’m the gay dad and mum (sarc off)
A narcissist does not love right, he hates behind a flurry of fluffiness, it’s a strange funny satan of sorts, so... pedophile and incestuous and... shall we say, gay dad like self imposing, not even loving it.
Freeping time to tell em how it is.
Sy. Joseph, pray for us.
Thank you for posting this!
This is so important.
Wouldn’t that be Jesus?
St. Joseph would be that model.
Jesus was entrusted to St. Joseph. It was to St. Joseph whom the angel appeared when the child's life was in danger and Herod was searching for Him.
Given what little we actually know about Joseph from the Scriptures, this is one of those exaggerated claims that just screams out for a return to reality. If we dispense with the romish fantasies, e.g., their doctrine of Mary’s eternal virginity which adds to the fiction surrounding the life of Joseph, what we find is a rather normal husband and father. He pretty much went about living up to his responsibilities toward his wife and his children.
I believe the last word should be "child". Jesus had no siblings.
But yes, he certainly lived up to his responsibilities, which is exactly why he makes an excellent role model. He was indeed "normal" in the sense that he fulfilled his daily duty to his family in the home at Nazareth and provided for their upkeep.........but not "normal" in another sense. He was unique in that he was the foster father of Jesus and Scripture tells us that Jesus was "subject" to him. Not too many other people can make that claim. It's worth reflecting on what sort of man would be chosen to act as a father figure to Jesus himself. Scripture also calls Joseph "a just man". That means a little more than that he was simply a good guy. It means he was "just" in the eyes of God, i.e. a holy man.
Scripture also tells us that soon after the birth of Jesus, he was visited by an angel and fled into Egypt to save the Christ child's life. So in that sense, he is also unique in that he carried Jesus to safety. The angel appeared to Joseph as head of the Holy Family as he had authority over the family.
Scripture does not devote a large number of words to Joseph but it tells us quite a lot about the man.
The Holy Family, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, were extraordinary people who lived humble, "ordinary" lives in Nazareth.
That is not biblical! The Gospel of Luke called St. Joseph a "just man," pointing to his holiness. He immediately left the Holy Land at the angel's prompting without question when the life of the Christ Child was threatened. That is an extraordinary sign of his faith. He stayed in Egypt, trusting in the Lord, until the angel told him to go back.
Technically, half brothers and sisters. Matt. 12:46.
Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers (Gr, adelphos) James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? (Matt. 13:55)
The theory that these were Jesus’ cousins is not supported by the text as there is a perfectly acceptable Greek word for a blood relative other than brother, syggenēs. It’s not found here.
It means he was "just" in the eyes of God, i.e. a holy man.
All Christ’s spiritual brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers are Holy in the eyes of God. Anyone who does the will of the Father is holy.
The fact is that Joseph was not sinless, though, in the brevity of the story we are not introduced to much of his background. He was a regular guy, and he, no doubt, had regular appetites. As a faithful Jewish husband he apparently satisfied the needs of his wife, including her sexual needs (1 Cor. 7:4,5). He gave her other children who accompanied her on her visits with Jesus. One of those children, James, in time became an elder in the church in Jerusalem. In that regard, Joseph was a true role model to all men who love their wives.
Of course the real model is Christ. We are told to love our wives as Christ loved the church. No mention of Joseph. In fact no one but the roman church has much to say about Joseph. Apparently this is directly related to the cult of Mary. After all, if Mary is sinless, then her husband must be as close to sinless as possible. With as little as we know from the scripture, the roman church has wide latitude in their inventions.
There are lots of “just men” in the Bible. They are regular guys saved by grace. Joseph followed the commands of God. He was obedient. That’s a characteristic of a (lower case) saint. All God’s children are called to be obedient. Are you claiming the Joseph was sinless?
No. Not technically.
The correct translation is "brethren".
These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to the Saviour.
All Christ’s spiritual brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers are Holy in the eyes of God. Anyone who does the will of the Father is holy.
But not all can claim that Jesus was subject to them. Not all watched over Jesus from the time he was a babe in swaddling clothes. Not all conversed with him every day and watched him grow. Only Joseph can claim that. Only Jospeh can claim the singular privilege of being the foster father of Jesus.
The fact is that Joseph was not sinless,
True.
..... though, in the brevity of the story we are not introduced to much of his background. He was a regular guy, and he, no doubt, had regular appetites. As a faithful Jewish husband he apparently satisfied the needs of his wife, including her sexual needs (1 Cor. 7:4,5). He gave her other children who accompanied her on her visits with Jesus.
"No doubt"?? "Apparently"??
Pure speculation.
Let's stick to what Scripture actually tells us about Joseph.
One of those children, James, in time became an elder in the church in Jerusalem.
See above.
In that regard, Joseph was a true role model to all men who love their wives.
He was indeed, but not in the way in which you suggest.
Of course the real model is Christ.
Who was subject to Joseph. At least that's what Scripture says.
Remember?
We are told to love our wives as Christ loved the church. No mention of Joseph. In fact no one but the roman church has much to say about Joseph. Apparently this is directly related to the cult of Mary. After all, if Mary is sinless, then her husband must be as close to sinless as possible. With as little as we know from the scripture, the roman church has wide latitude in their inventions.
You've done pretty well with some inventions of your own here.
Scripture gives us some very salient facts about why Joseph is unique. Furthermore, the feast of St. Joseph was kept by the Copts as early as the fourth century. St. Helena (b 274) erected an oratory to St. Joseph in the basilica which she built at Bethlehem, so veneration of St. Joseph goes way, way back in the East. In the West, the name of the foster-father of Our Lord (Nutritor Domini) appears in local martyrologies of the ninth and tenth centuries, and in 1129, for the first time, a church dedicated to his honor was constructed at Bologna. St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gertrude (d, 1310) and St. Bridget of Sweden (d 1373) were all instrumental in spreading devotion to him. His feast became fixed in the Catholic calender around 1475.
Is this what you mean when you say "no one but the roman church has much to say about Joseph"??
Back then, who else could have much to say? Who else was there that mattered in the first and early second millenium? Who else matters now?
Furthermore, St. Joseph holds a special place in the Orthodox Church, also.
It's only in the more, shall we say, .....ahem....recent.... ecclesial communities who have separated themselves from tradition that this is even an issue.
Of course none of this is from the Bible. That’s a theory common to Romanism.
There’s a few things that work contrary to this theory. There is a Greek word for cousin/near kin, in fact it as applied to Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). Given that fact there’s no reason not to use it to refer to these folks if in fact they were true cousins. But they weren’t. They were (half-)brothers. Jesus and the writers of Scripture are consistent in identifying these folk are brothers. IOW, the same words are used to refer to James the brother of Jesus as James the brother of John; cf Matt. 4:21 and Matt. 12:47 and Gal. 1:19.
"No doubt"?? "Apparently"??
I say “apparently” because we know he did father other children by Mary. See above. He was a good Jew, as was Mary. Neither of them were medieval monastics void of any sexual urges common to humans. Procreation was a blessing from the Lord. Joseph and Mary did they share once Christ was born of the virgin.
It's only in the more, shall we say, .....ahem....recent.... ecclesial communities who have separated themselves from tradition that this is even an issue.
No longer tied to the errors of Rome is another way of putting it. Or you could just refer to us as truly catholic and apostolic.
Doubtful. St. Matthew tells us that "Joseph ... took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son." (Matt. 1:24-25)
It's a huge stretch to suggest from this that they had no relations, ever. Indeed, the is that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations, and elsewhere the Gospels suggest that Mary indeed had subsequent children by Joseph.
Insistence that Mary had no other children seems to be a reading of the Gospels designed to fit a doctrine, rather than the other way around.
Indeed. If the Mary and Joseph of romish mythology were held up and followed as true models of the faith, RC couples would be celibate and childless.
And you can stop with that silliness, too. In my experience, those who talk about "romish mythology" are often just as guilty of forcing the Gospels to fit their doctrines.
Jesus was a “Good Jew” but that does not mean he followed the mores of the orthodox Jews we know. There is nothing to the Bible that tells us that he worked as a carpenter until he was thirty and then dropped his tools to begin his mission. The Jews of that time were divided into sects, including the Essenes who DID live a monastic life. A fact that Protestants will not face up to is, that Jesus—so far as we know—never had a wife. Nor did John the Baptist. Nor did Jeremiah, for that matter. Asceticism is something that the present world is uncomfortable with. The thought that Joseph could have lived with Mary without sex is, to a certain mind set, unthinkable. Yet even in the Protestant tradition, there have been sects whose members did not marry. Christianity, from the beginning, had a view of things quite different from that of the ordinary Jew. Maybe because they thought the end of the world was near, so why get so tied up with worldly things?
That’s certainly a possibility. By what standard shall we judge?
To a biblical mind. Sex is not sin. For the otherwise healthy couple, sex is the norm. The alternative is abstinence in singleness. Biblically speaking, abstinence within marriage is unthinkable.
Yet even in the Protestant tradition, there have been sects whose members did not marry.
Not all western non-catholics are protestants. People are often confused into that way of thinking, but there are lots of sects that are not protestant, i.e., they have no roots in the magisterial protestant reformation.
Maybe because they thought the end of the world was near, so why get so tied up with worldly things?
Not the end of the world, rather the end of the age. Get a good translation of the NT.
I am surprised at you topcat. This issue is easily resolved by cross-referencing the Crucifixion passages of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with John:
Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and (a) Mary the mother of James and Joses ... 61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and (b) the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
Mark 15:40 ... Among them were Mary Magdalene, (c) Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses ... 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. ... 47 Mary Magdalene and (d) Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
Luke 23:49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. ... 55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and (e) his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, (f) he said to his mother, Woman, behold your son! 27 Then said he to the disciple, Behold your mother! And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ... 38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea ... took the body of Jesus.
Clearly, (a) Mary the mother of James and Joses, (b) the other Mary, (c) Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, (d) Mary the mother of Joses, and (e) his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas are all the same person who followed Jesus from Galilee.
Since Jesus made John the adoptive son of His mother to serve as her male caretaker (f), it is obvious that neither James nor other "brethren" could have been sons of the Virgin Mary. Otherwise, John would have been awkwardly usurping the role of Mary's caretaker.
Therefore Scripture proves beyond a doubt that the Virgin Mary had no other sons besides Jesus.
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.