Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Were Joseph and Mary Married?
Catholic Answers ^ | September 20, 2013 | Tim Staples

Posted on 09/21/2013 3:07:58 PM PDT by NYer

When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?” (v. 34, Douay Rheims, Confraternity Edition).

For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it:

Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2).

But Protestants do not see it as quite so simple. Reformed Apologist James White gives us an example of the most common objection to our “Catholic” view of this text:

Nothing about a vow is mentioned in Scripture. Mary’s response to the angel was based upon the fact that it was obvious that the angel was speaking about an immediate conception, and since Mary was at that time only engaged to Joseph, but not married, at that time she could not possibly conceive in a natural manner, since she did not “know a man” (Mary—Another Redeemer? p. 31.).

Among the errors in just these two sentences (I counted four), there are two that stand out for our purpose here.

Error #1: Mr. White claims Mary was engaged to St. Joseph.

There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.

This simple truth proves devastating to Mr. White’s (and the Protestant's) argument. If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

Betrothed = Married?

For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Further, the angel then tells Joseph:

Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”

Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).

So let's recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed.

Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged” in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged” because they have yet to consummate their marriage.

Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…” comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,” but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesied”—that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?” It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense.

Error #2: Mr. White claimed, “…it was obvious that the angel was speaking about an immediate conception.” And, closely related to this, Mr. White then claimed Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" because she knew "at that time she could not conceive in a natural manner?"

Really? It was obvious?

There is not a single word in this text or anywhere else in Scripture that indicates Mary knew her conception was going to be immediate and via supernatural means. That’s why she asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" It appears she did not know the answer. How could she? Why would it ever enter into her mind? There would be no way apart from a revelation from God that she could have known. And most importantly, according to the text, the angel did not reveal the fact that Mary would conceive immediately and supernaturally until after Mary asked the question.

But let's suppose Mary was "engaged" as Mr. White claims. There would be even less reason to believe the conception would be immediate and somehow supernatural then there would be if Mary had a vow of virginity (though there’s really no reason to think this in either scenario). An "engaged" woman would have naturally assumed that when she and St. Joseph would later consummate their marriage, they could expect a very special surprise from God. They were going to conceive the Messiah. There would be no reason to think anything else. And there would be no reason to ask the question.

One final thought: When Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man," the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in the future tense. There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: sectarianturmoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last

1 posted on 09/21/2013 3:07:58 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Let’s lighten things up tonight, ping!


2 posted on 09/21/2013 3:08:30 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

Neither the Bible nor Jewish custom of the time had anything at all in them about a celibate marriage. Would have been viewed as weird if not obscene.

The Bible itself also says nothing about the couple having for some obscure reason planned such a "union." In fact, there is nothing at all in the text to indicate they planned anything other than a normal Jewish marriage till first Joseph and then Mary were visited by angelic messengers.

3 posted on 09/21/2013 3:19:05 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Somebody doesn’t know Jewish history and traditions.


4 posted on 09/21/2013 3:20:28 PM PDT by high info voter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I don’t remember anything in the Bible about them not having a normal marriage.


5 posted on 09/21/2013 3:22:26 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If they weren’t married by Deacon Wynocki of the 76th Christian Church of Downer’s Creek, TN, then they weren’t married! That’s my position and I’m being sarcastic about it.


6 posted on 09/21/2013 3:28:38 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

GeronL — “What is a normal marriage?” “What is an Abbey Normal Marriage?” The whole world doesn’t care to no. And did the Kellogg family have a cereal marriage?


7 posted on 09/21/2013 3:31:22 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

This guy has too much time on his hands. It’s Saturday night, and this is way above my pay grade.


8 posted on 09/21/2013 3:32:31 PM PDT by huckfillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

But more importantly, was Jesus red haired? that is the crucial theological question here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2425154/Ginger-Gene-showed-50k-years-ago-colder-climates-say-scientists.html

I’ll now go quietly crawl back into my man-cave and read military history.


9 posted on 09/21/2013 3:34:07 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Much of the author’s argument falls apart on the fact that the Gospel writers always refer to them as betrothed, not married.

While betrothal is not exactly the same thing as a modern engagement, the ancients were fully aware that it was something short of full marriage.

It is also relevant that ancient Judaism had nothing parallel to our present marriage ceremony, with public vows and such. The “ceremony” generally consisted of a procession through the streets, with the father of the bride taking her to her husband’s home, and handing her over to him. The essence of the process was the father publicly giving (or selling) the bride to her husband.

This was followed by a celebration at the new husband’s home, like the one at Cana. The wedding was normally consummated that night.

The period between when the father contracted his daughter in marriage and the procession through the streets was referred to as betrothal. Under the Law a betrothed woman was treated in many ways as a married one, for instance with regard to the law on rape, and breaking the betrothal required a divorce.

But there WAS a difference between betrothal and marriage and the Gospel writers presumably were indicating something by making this distinction.


10 posted on 09/21/2013 3:37:51 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Jewish betrothal (my bolds):
In the Bible.

Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.

... After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking ("nissu'in," "liḳḳuḥin").

Mary was betrothed, but the marriage was not scheduled to be consummated.
11 posted on 09/21/2013 3:37:53 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

A ginger Jesus?


12 posted on 09/21/2013 3:38:22 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The period between when the father contracted his daughter in marriage and the procession through the streets was referred to as betrothal. Under the Law a betrothed woman was treated in many ways as a married one, for instance with regard to the law on rape, and breaking the betrothal required a divorce.

Yep. They were betrothed, but not yet consummated. Then Mary becomes pregnant, an awkward state to be in prior to your betrothed husband having consummated the marriage.

13 posted on 09/21/2013 3:41:12 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Chode

Well I don’t have a copy of their marriage license but if anyone wants to go down to the court house in the town of Nazareth.......


14 posted on 09/21/2013 3:50:12 PM PDT by Morgana (Always a bit of truth in dark humor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did” St Maximilian Kolbe, Martyr who also ran a popular magazine focused on improving the culture, we sure could use that!


15 posted on 09/21/2013 4:03:24 PM PDT by jph1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I think that part of the story has been missed. While in some cultures, an old man marrying a young girl would be ordinary, I suspect that at the time, among Jews, it was thought of as extraordinary.

That is, not frowned upon, but unusual, or done for unusual reasons. In this case, Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, were already elderly when she was born, which suggests that they died when she was still at a young age.

Girls in that time were considered as marriageable at the age of 12 years and six months. So even with a vow of chastity, as an orphan she would be more or less “assigned” for marriage to a man, so she would not starve to death, though she could choose from among candidates. And he would know that she had made a vow of chastity.


16 posted on 09/21/2013 4:03:48 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (The best War on Terror News is at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
good one...
17 posted on 09/21/2013 4:11:54 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I didn’t think the Catholic Church recognizes marriages that aren’t consummated in the usual way. Hence the refusal of paraplegics and others who are impotent from getting married. And it is also a frequent argument against same sex marriage, because in order for a true marriage to take place it must be consummated, or to put it bluntly, a penis must enter a vagina.


18 posted on 09/21/2013 4:19:20 PM PDT by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking (”nissu’in,” “liḳḳuḥin”). __________________________________________________

You sir are correct. When I read the article description of Betrothal=Marriage I quit reading because of the obvious ignorance of the writer. If you don’t even know what betrothal is how can you speak with authority about any other ancient custom.


19 posted on 09/21/2013 4:30:02 PM PDT by JAKraig (Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Matthew 1:25 says “until” .....
24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

13:55 and Mark 6:3 name four men called Jesus’ brethren: James, Joses (short for Joseph Jr.), Simon, and Judas called Jude. Verse 56 mentions that Jesus had sisters. The sisters are not named, but since the word is plural there were at least two of them. John 7:5 tells us his brothers didn’t believe in Jesus, and all three synoptic gospels tell of a time when his mother and brothers came to speak with Jesus. The implication is that they came to take him home, possibly to rethink his ministry because he was offending the Jewish leaders. That may be why Jesus didn’t go out to talk with them immediately.

Later, 1 Corinthians 15:7 says Jesus made a resurrection appearance to his brother James, which must have converted him. Then, Matthew 28:10 records that the rest of Jesus’ brothers would see him at a resurrection appearance in Galilee. So, Acts 1:14 says Mary and all the brothers were present when the Holy Spirit came upon believers at Pentecost. In Acts 12:17, Dr. Luke wrote that Peter sent word to James and his brothers of his miraculous release from prison. By the middle of the first Christian century James appears to be the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19 and 2:9). He wrote the epistle of James, and his brother Judas wrote the epistle of Jude in the New Testament (James 1:1; Jude 1:1).

Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:34-35 record that Mary was a virgin and Jesus was fathered by God’s Spirit. God, himself, testified at Jesus’ baptism: “This is my beloved Son!” (Matthew 3:17). John 3:16 identifies Jesus as God’s only begotten son, meaning he was the only son God ever fathered. So, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. Matthew 1:25 says Joseph did not have relations with Mary until her first son was born, implying that she had other children. Joseph would have been the father of Mary’s other children. That would make them the half-brothers and sisters of Jesus.

In an effort to keep Mary pure and a perpetual virgin some church dogmas declare that Mary never had any other children. This is not supported by Scripture. Jesus was miraculously born, but he had a normal family with a mother, foster father, half brothers and sisters, aunt Mary and uncle Cleophas (John 19:25), and cousins Elizabeth and her son, John the baptizer (Luke 1:13 and 36).

- Dr. Tom Lovorn i


20 posted on 09/21/2013 4:31:45 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A long time ago?


21 posted on 09/21/2013 4:32:52 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Mr. Staples is in sore need of a history lesson concerning ancient "betrothal" periods of ONE YEAR before the marriage is consummated. Joseph knew he and Mary had not yet come together:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. (Matt. 1:18-19)

The one year engagement/betrothal period was for the protection of BOTH parties. It showed the wife if the husband was able to provide and honest and, for the husband, if the wife was pregnant by some other man.

Do Catholics just swallow whatever their currently popular "apologists" spout or do most think it through first?

22 posted on 09/21/2013 4:45:14 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
And he would know that she had made a vow of chastity.

Where is your evidence Mary ever made such a vow?

23 posted on 09/21/2013 4:46:21 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Burkean

Castrati opera singers like Farinelli at the time of Handel in the 1700’s, were not permitted to marry because they could not fully consummate the marriage - although apparently they could achieve some type of erection but not dispense seminal fluid and engender children. Which was why Signor Farinelli lived in a romantic relationship with a woman and used his brother to get her with child. He raised the boy as his nephew and left him his fortune. Watch the movie, made circa 1994. This was also why the eunuchs in the Middle East harems were completely castrated, penis was removed, to prevent any insertion.


24 posted on 09/21/2013 5:00:52 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Let’s lighten things up tonight, ping!

Okay, since the whole thing is a fairy tale, feel free to make up your own beginning and end.

25 posted on 09/21/2013 5:02:30 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Circumstantial.

The most opportune occasion for such a vow was her presentation in the Temple. The Protoevangelium of James (7-8), and the writing entitled “De nativit. Mariae” (7-8), state that Joachim and Anna, faithful to a vow they had made, presented the child Mary in the Temple when she was three years old; that the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of virginity on this occasion.

The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145, which expands backward in time the infancy stories contained the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and presents a narrative concerning the birth and upbringing of Mary herself. It is the oldest source to assert the virginity of Mary not only prior to but during (and after) the birth of Jesus. The ancient manuscripts that preserve the book have different titles, including “The Birth of Mary”, “The Story of the Birth of Saint Mary, Mother of God,” and “The Birth of Mary; The Revelation of James.”

The Gospel of James is one of several surviving Infancy Gospels that give an idea of the miracle literature that was created to satisfy the hunger of early Christians for more detail about the early life of their Saviour. In Greek such an infancy gospel was termed a protevangelion, a “pre-Gospel” narrating events of Jesus’ life before those recorded in the four canonical gospels. Such a work was intended to be “apologetic, doctrinal, or simply to satisfy one’s curiosity”.

Other infancy gospels in this tradition include The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (based on the Protoevangelium of James and on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas), and the so-called Arabic Infancy Gospel; all of which were regarded by the Church as apocryphal.


26 posted on 09/21/2013 5:07:33 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (The best War on Terror News is at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Different faith traditions can believe what they want to believe but the bottom line is we should respect the Holy Family and not cause pain to other believers who can’t or won’t accept the traditional teachings. I don’t think the two sides will ever come together over this.


27 posted on 09/21/2013 5:08:05 PM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

A vow of celibacy by a three year old girl?

Color me skeptical.

Your real problem is that Jewish culture and Law did not glorify celibacy in the way later Christian and Catholic culture did. It promoted marriage, childbirth and family. Virginity, particularly perpetual virginity, was not viewed as a good thing.


28 posted on 09/21/2013 5:15:25 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Mark Steyn: "In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Jewish culture and Law did not glorify celibacy in the way later Christian and Catholic culture did.

Well, Jesus (Mat 19:12) and St. Paul valued it (1 Cor. 7:1-7).

Regardless, there were the Essenes.

29 posted on 09/21/2013 5:24:30 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

David was


30 posted on 09/21/2013 5:47:59 PM PDT by hecht (america 9/11, Israel 24/7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer
That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation.

If this logic is correct, then Mary and Joseph's marriage was never ratified (e.g. confirmed, consented). That would mean Joseph never confirmed or consented to the marriage.

Is this the path Catholics would like to take?

31 posted on 09/21/2013 5:55:39 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

None of this matters. the Bible says nothing about Mary’s perpetual virginity ... period. People have invented things that don’t exist in the Bible for unknown reasons.


32 posted on 09/21/2013 6:06:07 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It is a lot more complicated than that. If not celibacy, chastity was an extremely complicated thing in Judaism, more so than in Christianity.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4263-chastity


33 posted on 09/21/2013 6:07:54 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (The best War on Terror News is at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Check out Mt 12:49, Mk 6:3, Luke 8:19, Jn 7:3,4,5,10, referring to Jesus’ brothers ( adelphos- male sibling in the greek text, not adelphotes - a brotherly relation as in brotherhood).

Also, James, the Lord’s brother (adelphos) in Mt 13:55. Mk 6:3, Lk 24:10, Gal 1:19, Judas in Jude 1, James some more in Acts 1:13, 12:17, 21:18, Gal 2:9, and, James (the entire epistle of).

I have no doubt that these bothers had the same father as each other, and the same Mother, the Mother of Jesus.

One would have to construct an awful lot of sematic exceptions in order to purpose that these “brothers of the Lord” were really just members of the “brotherhood of Jesus....

The only reason to declare Mary a lifelong celibate woman is to worship her. Not to simply state what the language means in plain “greek”.

Seek it out, study of your own accord, test all things, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit (if you are born again, otherwise your just stuck with your own intellect).

Best;


34 posted on 09/21/2013 6:09:17 PM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

And here I thought you were coming down on me, GreyFriar.


35 posted on 09/21/2013 6:15:58 PM PDT by jodyel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: high info voter

If I remember correctly once the contract was established they were considered the same as married, and she would have gone to live with her in laws to be. She would have been about 12 or 13 at the time, depends on when she started her menses Because that is the time frame they married them off to much older men, Joesph would have been in his 30’s at least.


36 posted on 09/21/2013 6:18:13 PM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar
RE the ginger hair, the Nephilim (giants in the land and worldwide) were noted to be res haired. One must consider if that particular gene came from the Nephilim.
37 posted on 09/21/2013 6:24:00 PM PDT by dglang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Could not tell you, I’m AG, and believe in the virgin birth, knowing Joseph was much older than Mary as he was already a master carpenter. Probably about 30 to her 12-13. And the angel who told him not to be afraid to take her to wife also told him to refrain from touching her until after Jesus’s birth. Scripture prophecy had to be fulfilled of virgin birth.


38 posted on 09/21/2013 6:25:14 PM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer

January 15, 1

I guess you were not invited. No one mentioned the baby. Mary’s younger sister took care of her for the afternoon.

The reception was at the Moses lounge, you know..the place owned by Joe’s uncle Enoch. He has “friends.”

The best gift of the day was a beach set for the baby. Like he needs a bathing suit.

Lots of wine and fish for dinner. It just didn’t stop. Who knew Mary’s parents would spring for the open bar.


39 posted on 09/21/2013 6:49:29 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

A phrase which irks me is the Mother of God thing. Mary wasn’t the mother of God the Father, but God the Son. She was impregnated by God the Holy Spirit. For her to be the mother of God,she would have to have given birth to the trinity. God has always existed, and through Jesus - all things were created - including Mary. Just where was Mary when Jesus was creating heaven and earth?

Catholics need to study the Word for themselves and think these things through - Mary was blessed to have been chosen as the vessel to bring the Savior into the world as a man. However, no where in the Scriptures are we ever told to treat her above Jesus - or to pray to her as a mediator. \


40 posted on 09/21/2013 7:08:01 PM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Why in the world would Mary have been getting married in the first place if she had taken a vow to never know a man? The above argument implies Joseph was okay with that which is obviously absurd. What could possibly have been his motive to agree to such a thing? The article doesn't address this rather obvious point (I wonder why?).

Betrothal was more serious than a modern engagagment but it was still before the marriage ceremony and the marriage was only consummated at that point. If he's implying betrothal had to have been after then he's full of it.

And then of course they declare that Jesus brothers were actually his cousins. Righhht.

41 posted on 09/21/2013 7:11:18 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
"Check out Mt 12:49, Mk 6:3, Luke 8:19, Jn 7:3,4,5,10, referring to Jesus’ brothers ( adelphos- male sibling in the greek text, not adelphotes - a brotherly relation as in brotherhood)."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus is actually calling His disciples and other people who do the will of His Father in heaven "His brothers", using that Greek word "adelphos".

The truth is, "adelphos" can mean several things, including "a brother, near kinsman, or relative; one of the same nation or nature; one of equal rank and dignity; an associate, a member of the Christian community", etc.    (Source:    http://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/adelphos )

Also, your statement "The only reason to declare Mary a lifelong celibate woman is to worship her" is also false.    There are many other reasons why one could believe that Mary was a lifelong celibate.    I believe Mary is "ever-virgin" (celibate), and I do not worship Mary.

42 posted on 09/21/2013 7:25:10 PM PDT by Heart-Rest (Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer

And yet according to Catholicism, the marriage was never consummated, which means Joseph was also a virgin.


43 posted on 09/21/2013 7:32:31 PM PDT by Old Yeller (Who am I to judge homosexuals? That's what the Tony Awards are for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Yeller

Exactly. There’s no way to explain this implication so it’s ignored.


44 posted on 09/21/2013 7:50:30 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Old Yeller
"And yet according to Catholicism, the marriage was never consummated, which means Joseph was also a virgin."

Well, either a virgin, or a widower.    (Source:     http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-st-joseph-a-virgin-or-a-widower-with-children )

45 posted on 09/21/2013 7:55:50 PM PDT by Heart-Rest (Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Heart-Rest

Why were they getting married in the first place? Is there some “tradition” that explains that too?


46 posted on 09/21/2013 8:00:25 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jph1776
You are right!

"Never apologize for the

Blessed Virgin Mary!"

~~Mother Angelica

 

Mother Angelica and Marcus Grodi with Rosalind Moss and Kristine Franklin


47 posted on 09/21/2013 8:00:27 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

But Mary IS the Mother of God the Son, Jesus Christ, fully human and fully God.

Re=read the story of the Visitation again, please, and Elizabeth’s greeting to Mary, “How is this that the Mother of the Lord....”


48 posted on 09/21/2013 8:03:53 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
"Why were they getting married in the first place? Is there some “tradition” that explains that too?"

You mean you've never heard of the tradition of getting married?

May I ask, where are you from?

49 posted on 09/21/2013 8:05:09 PM PDT by Heart-Rest (Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: NYer

1. How does the writer know Mary’s parents were elderly when she was born? Never read that in the Bible.

2. How did the writer know Joseph was much older than Mary? Where does it say THAT in the Bible? He may have been as much as ten years older, but if he were say 24 and she was 14 that wouldn’t seem that strange.

3. They were probably legally married prior to going to Bethlehem, most likely before Mary began to “show”, otherwise in the eyes of many Jesus most certainly would have been a bastard child, and would not even seem like Joseph’s at all. Maybe when the angel said “Do not be afraid to take Mary for your wife” Joseph took care of the legalities right away.

4. Joseph must have been quite a man to be able to deal with all of the above.


50 posted on 09/21/2013 8:06:41 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson