Posted on 05/02/2017 6:07:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
After she had Jesus, Mary had more children with her husband Joseph.
10 A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
There you go again; PURPOSELY using a non-biblical phrase.
Is Jesus God?
If Jesus had other brothers and sisters through Mary, He would have not entrusted her after His death to the care of his disciple John, since it would have been the other children's duty to take her into their homes.
He certainly had close relatives, cousins, possibly older step-brothers who were children of Joseph by a previous marriage (we don't know the details): these would have all been called, using the Biblical term, "brothers", but none of them --- as we know from the New Testament --- had the relationship with Mary which would have given them the role of caring for her after the death of Joseph and Jesus.
You must go to the Catholic Church. Never mind. Carry on.
Still Catholic after all these years.
+{{{:o)
(Papal smiley)
Virginity can only be considered an honor if one believes that sex is wrong.
And especially if one believes that sex between a husband and wife is wrong.
Joseph was legally married to Mary at the time of the Annunciation. The angel told him in a dream to not be afraid to take Mary AS HIS WIFE.
That would be a mighty strange thing for the angel to command if GOD considered Mary to be a perpetual virgin and spouse of the Holy Spirit.
It is clear in Scripture that Joseph did not know her until AFTER she delivered Jesus. And it goes on to name brothers and sisters, using the Greek words for brother and sister, not the Greek word for cousin. They did understand the difference.
You all have a real problem on your hands because when the Holy spirit impregnated Mary, she was already a man's legal wife.
The title *mother of Jesus* was about identifying which of the many Mary’s in Scripture the Holy Spirit was referring to.
It’s not about Jesus or His deity. It’s about which Mary was being talked about. The title is NOT about jesus. It’s about MARY.
And it was the one who gave birth to JESUS.
Hence, Mary, mother of JESUS, as GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT saw fit to call her.
Or do you think He was wrong?
Or not clear?
Or did an inadequate job in identifying HER?
Or are you just improving on His work?
The title *mother of Jesus* was about identifying which of the many Mary’s in Scripture the Holy Spirit was referring to.
It’s not about Jesus or His deity. It’s about which Mary was being talked about. The title is NOT about jesus. It’s about MARY.
And it was the one who gave birth to JESUS.
Hence, Mary, mother of JESUS, as GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT saw fit to call her.
Or do you think He was wrong?
Or not clear?
Or did an inadequate job in identifying HER?
Or are you just improving on His work?
Except that John was the one who was there with Him and Mary at the cross.
HI can see that He certainly would have if He knew, and He did, that John was the best one to care fore her.
He certainly had close relatives, cousins, possibly older step-brothers who were children of Joseph by a previous marriage (we don't know the details): these would have all been called, using the Biblical term, "brothers", but none of them --- as we know from the New Testament --- had the relationship with Mary which would have given them the role of caring for her after the death of Joseph and Jesus.
Pure speculation.
P!
If *I* had a problem, I'd be saying that God cuckolded Joseph, which is, to an extreme degree, dishonorable. Such a charge makes God out to be a wife-stealer: blasphemous.
But that is not the case since I believe that the Incarnation via the Blessed Virgin Mary was intended from before the foundation of the world, and God had the prior and exclusive claim.
Therefore the "marriage" between Mary and Joseph is not to be regarded as an ordinary marriage, but as a legal provision to make Jesus legally of the House of Joseph, thus also the lawful, rightful heir of David (He was naturally related to David only on His mother's side); and to make sure Jesus and Mary had a provider and protector.
There's so much to love about St. Joseph, especially in obeying the Angel and carrying through with things he could not have fully understood.
As we all know, the use of the word "brother" in Scripture is not only used to refer to biological brothers but also to relatives (Genesis 14:14, 29:15), close friends (2 Samuel 1:26, 1 Kings 9:13) or even allies (Amos 1:9).
What we do know is that they were not sons of Mary. They are never termed 'sons of Mary', and they evidently didn't have the degree of kinship to take her into their homes.
Additional evidence is that there was never a question of dynastic succession of Church leadership based on kinship to Jesus, an issue which would have arisen, at least as a complication to be discussed and disposed of, if Jesus has brothers via Mary. The "brother of Jesus" James was not a son of Mary, since the NT identifies the (two) Apostles named James, as "son of Alphaeus" and "son of Zebedee," and Mary was obviously not married to Alphaeus and/or Zebedee.
Yet more evidence is that the early Christian community evinced no interest subsequently in alleged 'natural' brothers of Jesus via Mary: no personal histories, no burial places, no relics, no mention, zip. Unthinkable, if physical descendants of Mary existed, in a society where such genealogical information was of intense significance and interest.
And --- though I know that some dismiss early Church history with a wave of the hand as if it had no relevance --- as early as the Catacombs of Priscilla, you have Christian inscriptions honoring "Sancta Maria Semper Virgine" (Holy Mary, ever-Virgin.)
The Greek term Aeiparthenos (i.e. "Ever Virgin") is used in the earliest liturgies of which any record exists.
The term "ever-virgin" is also noted in early Ecumenical Councils, but was current in very oldest churches which had nothing to do with the Ecumenical Councils, such as the Armenian Christian Church and the Assyrian Christian Church.
So it was until the 16th century, when somebody knew better?
Then why did the angel command Joseph to take Mary AS HIS WIFE?
Matthew 1:18-20 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
No, the problem is the Catholic's because of the claims they make about her being the spouse of God.
Joseph was told that he was not to fear taking Mary as his wife and the reason was that what was conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
It does NOT say the Holy Spirit impregnated her. And the reason that Joseph was not to fear is the very reason Catholic give for insisting Mary was a perpetual virgin, because Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Now, at that point, Mary was CLEARLY another man's wife.
The Holy Spirit in inspiring Scripture, names Joseph her *HUSBAND*.
So if your argument holds, then what was the Holy Spirit doing impregnating another man's wife if it resulted in adultery? And then why did God tell the angel to command Joseph to continue with the marriage to Mary if GOD HIMSELF thought as Catholics did?
No, you all have the problem because everything you use to support your positions is in conflict with God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and is not even consistent with itself.
A totally baseless claim that has zero Scriptural support or backing.
Only wishful thinking.
.
What we do know is that Joseph knew not Mary until...
Mary was a completely normal woman.
She had intercourse at the same frequency as other women of her culture until her husband was unable.
There is nothing in the word of Yehova to cause us to believe anything else.
.
That is something about which Scripture says exactly nothing.
The entire early Church, in every record we have, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then came Helvidius (around 380 A.D.), the first Christian on record to claim that Mary had children. In his treatise on the perpetual virginity, Jerome meticulously refuted Helvidius's theory as "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world".
Following Jerome's refutation, Helvidius' novelties gained no traction and disappeared. The issue was disinterred 13 centuries later only among certain self-appointed German and English theologians. As if they knew better than the entire body of Christianity until that point!
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.