1 edit
One thing is sure. If Joseph had been the biological father of Jesus, this would have disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah.
He had to be related to David through another way. It could not have been through Joseph and He still be qualified to be the Messianic son of David - King of Israel.
Mary was also related to David. So being born of the virgin Mary preserved Christ's right to be considered as a descendent of King David to inherit the messianic throne.
Originally posted by jaywillI'm always amazed at how easily the family tree was maintained back in these times. It really is a wonder to behold.
One thing is sure. If Joseph had been the biological father of Jesus, this would have disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah.
He had to be related to David through another way. It could not have been through Joseph and He still be qualified to be the Messianic son of David - King of Israel.
Mary was also related to David. So being born of the v ...[text shortened]... Christ's right to be considered as a descendent of King David to inherit the messianic throne.
Originally posted by Thomas LaveryI have always found this to be a strange verse in support for Mary's sexual activity. First, if you infer from the words the meaning 'He knew her after she had born her firstborn son', then the evangelist would be making quite a scandalous comment on the sexual life of a young woman -- something I do not expect any 1st century Christian would be comfortable with. Second, I don't think that it is a valid rendering of the meaning of 'until' in this case. I think in context the meaning of 'until' (heos, in the Greek, or donec, in the Latin) is merely 'up to this point in time'. What the evangelist seeks to convey is that Mary has remained virginal all through the entirety of her pregnancy. The point is not to say that Mary, after giving birth, then had sex. I can't see why the evangelist would want to so boldly declare that.
Matthew 1 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
There is a cult of Mary who believe in her perpetual virginity and also believe she is the Co-Redeemtress equal with Christ. I guess this would be the reason why this subject matters at all. Also in the natural course of things I'm sure Mary and Joseph being married and all had relations of a sexual nature.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71There is a cult of Mary who believe in her perpetual virginity and also believe she is the Co-Redeemtress equal with Christ. I guess this would be the reason why this subject matters at all. Also in the natural course of things I'm sure Mary and Joseph being married and all had relations of a sexual nature.
There is a cult of Mary who believe in her perpetual virginity and also believe she is the Co-Redeemtress equal with Christ. I guess this would be the reason why this subject matters at all. Also in the natural course of things I'm sure Mary and Joseph being married and all had relations of a sexual nature.
Manny
The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is shared by the majority of Christians, Orthodox and Catholic. They are hardly a cult. The doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix is not espoused by any Christian church officially and is a much later development than the perpetual virginity (the perpetual virginity of Mary is first expressed in the second century in the Protoevangelium; the doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix only appeared explicitly last century.) Also, the doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix does not entail that Mary is equal with Christ; it means that Mary had a significant role in Christ's redemptive mission by accepting to bear Christ into the world. Catholics, who primarily subscribe to this doctrine (although they are not obligated to by the Catholic faith), would obviously reject the idea that Mary is equal with Christ.
Originally posted by darvlayIt's still ruddy hard to find out who your great great grandad was nowadays, or what he did and where he lived.
I'm always amazed at how easily the family tree was maintained back in these times. It really is a wonder to behold.
Thank fuct for the bible. It explains everything about maintaining family history, relations and such.
I never could find the name of Jesus' and Mary Magdeline's kid in there tho.
God I searched, and yet you beheathened me with no answer. :'(
-m.
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlaywhy should it be a matter of wonder? you keep a record? Indeed the Jews kept a public register which existed up until 70 C.E after which the temple was destroyed by the Romans under Titus and those genealogical records destroyed. Indeed if one was to serve in any priestly activity it was paramount that you must trace your lineage to the levitical priesthood, those who could not, were disqualified from serving.
I'm always amazed at how easily the family tree was maintained back in these times. It really is a wonder to behold.
'I have sent you a copy of that decree, registered on the tables, which concerns Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, that it may be laid up among the public records' - Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 14.
