Posted on 12/14/2018 5:56:56 AM PST by Gamecock
Yes.
It seems most likely Uriah knew what was going on.
The Court and City of Jerusalem was not that large.
Uriah had friends in the King's guard.
They had wives.
The wives talked, the servants talked.
You cannot keep that sort of secret in that sort of setting.
There was no sort of "privacy" such as exists in large urban centers of today.
A virgin conceived and bore a son.
After that, her virginity was of no import.
The prophecy had been filled and there was no need for her to remain a virgin after Jesus was born.
She and Joseph were free to do as they pleased, since the angel told Joseph to not fear to take Mary AS HIS WIFE.
That comes with responsibilities and privileges.
That’s also way Scripture says Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to have sex with Mary and lists the other children they had together.
Careful reading of Scripture is that not much of anyone really understood who Jesus was and claimed to be until AFTER His resurrection.
YES!
Luke uses the word πρωτότοκον in describing Jesus.
The word conveys the following meaning:
4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).
4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).
[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]
******************************************
Now contrast this with John's description of Jesus being the only begotten Son of God.
μονογενῆ is the word he uses.
It conveys the following:
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
Luke used this word also in 7:12, 8:42 and 9:38 to note the only child of others.
He did not use it in relation to Jesus.
This is significant in that Luke was a doctor....a man trained in the medical field. He would know if a woman had more than one child.
Further, Luke tells us he specifically "....investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." Luke 1:3 NASB
Luke notes in 8:19 that Jesus had brothers...though he doesn't mention the sisters.
He doesn't segregate or note these brothers as being from another marriage of Joseph's.
Further, we have the account in Matthew where the people in His hometown noted:
Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?”… Mattnew 13:54-56 NASB
The locals identified Him as belonging to BOTH Joseph and Mary and the brothers were His.
There is no reference to them being from anyone other than Joseph and Mary.
It is true there are no passages saying Joseph went in and lay with Mary as seen in various places in the OT. However, there are no passages ever saying they went to the bathroom either...but I think we know they did.
Further, we have no passages describing Joseph actually working...yet we know he was a carpenter. Therefore we can say with confidence he did work at some point.
The New Testament is clear....Joseph and Mary had other children as long as one reads the passages in context and doesn't read their theology back into the texts.
However, it is recorded that Joseph did not know her (have sex with her) until AFTER Jesus was born. Because she was found to be with child BEFORE THEY (Mary and Joseph) came together.
I suppose saying, *And then they had sex* wouldn’t be good enough for certain folks anyway, considering what they do with other passages that clear.
Excellent point!
Please provide Scripture to back up your assertation.
Matthew 27
56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[a] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Mark 15
40 There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.
Mark 3
18 James the son of Alphaeus,
According to all references Alphaeus and clopas or Cleopas are the same person.
This other mary is idebtified as the mother of James and Joses or josepth and she is identified as the wife of Clopas or Cleopas.
Jude is also called another son of Alphaeus by many of the historical shall i say experts?.
It can get kind of mixed up but since there is not one scripture saying anything about any of these children being the children of Josepth and Mary the following scripture closes the deal for me.
John 19
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[b] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Mary had no other Children.
The Greek has other words for cousins which are not used in these or the other passages dealing with this topic.
-— James and Joseph and Simon and Judas——
At least two of these were the sons of another Mary and Clopas or Cleaopas.
Mary was a virgin.
Luke
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Mary was favored by God, i doubt if any one could really believe he would trash her after her baring his son.
She was not like the average woman, people today try to compare her to their mother but there is nothing to compare.
If they were cousins Luke would have so noted. The context of the passages along with the Greek tell us Joseph and Mary had their own biological children.
If they were cousins Luke would have so noted.
It is always the mother of Jesus and his brethren or brothers and sisters, it never refers to them as Mary`s children.
Also if Mary had other children the below scripture would not be possible.
John 19
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
As far as his family was concerned Jesus had no authority after his death, if Mary had other children the second born male would have taken over the responsibility.
And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
If Mary had other children john would have had the fight of his life, it just would not have happened.
Also Luke was a Greek he would not have known that the Hebrew meanings was different from the Greek meanings of certain words.
Paul was not there, he could only know by word of mouth and it might be that Greek was more familiar to him than Hebrew or Aramaic.
I believe it is and has always been a language problem but since you or i can not prove it either way i see no reason to use Mary to show our bias for the Catholic Church as there are a few things that they are proven to be wrong about, such as calling any one other than God father.
We can agree on that i think.
I agree there no specific texts that say on Tuesday Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual intercourse....however, when the passages in question are read in context it's clear Joseph and Mary had sex and had other children.
Now, to the point of why did Jesus give Mary to John.
I provide the article below. In summary, at this point it is believed His brothers and sisters were not saved at this point. He gave Mary to one of His closest friends...someone He could trust.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mary-John.html
The article also notes this is not Jesus giving John to everyone. The Greek behind this passage indicates it is a personal situation. John is to take Mary into his home and care for her.
Also Luke was a Greek he would not have known that the Hebrew meanings was different from the Greek meanings of certain words.
This comment is easily answered by noting that Luke had researched everything as he noted in the opening of this gospel. Also, you presume he would not be conversant in Hebrew.
Paul was not there, he could only know by word of mouth and it might be that Greek was more familiar to him than Hebrew or Aramaic.
Same argument from Luke can be applied here. But you forget Paul was a Pharisee....would he not know Hebrew?
In either situation, the Holy Spirit moved these men to write as they did and use the words they did.
The Greek New Testament doesn't support the Roman Catholic claims on this issue.
.however, when the passages in question are read in context it’s clear Joseph and Mary had sex and had other children.
I think we need to realize that this was not a normal set of events, it was Miraculous so why do you assume that the Miracle stopped there?
Mary found favor with God because she was not like other women, I believe Mary was a virgin all of her life, i do not believe the Miracle stopped with the birth.
——I provide the article below. In summary, at this point it is believed His brothers and sisters were not saved at this point. He gave Mary to one of His closest friends...someone He could trust.——
I can only remind you that Jesus was considered a nut, his authority would not have been recognized by his family or any one else except John and John had no authority.
—— This comment is easily answered by noting that Luke had researched everything as he noted in the opening of this gospel.-——
I still believe it is a terrible language problem and will note that it was years before Paul or luke could have known anything about it.
By Pauls own words it was three years before he even went to see Peter and was with him only fifteen days and possibly 14 years later saw him again.
He only saw Peter and James on his first visit so by his words it must have been many years before he met any of the other apostles.
So who was he interviewing?
-—In either situation, the Holy Spirit moved these men to write as they did and use the words they did.-—
There is no proof of that at all and if the holy spirit was involved why would Luke have to research it.
If you watch TV you can see that each side of the political chain claims they have proof but at the end of the day there is only proof of what side they are on.
When you listen to the commentators they do not know any more than what they did to begin with, it is all just speculation, but they do believe the system is using the hearings to some how get to Trump.
The protestants are using Mary to show their bias for the Catholic Church, i think it is a shame.
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.