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 jaywill 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.
I'm always amazed at how easily the family tree was maintained back in these times. It really is a wonder to behold.
Originally posted by jaywill Joseph was also skeptical for a while.
skepticism usually gives the appearance of wisdom.
... the appearance.
Hallelujah!~
My sister had a God baby also, my father didn't listen to reason.
P-
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
31 Jan '11 21:23
Originally posted by Thomas Lavery 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.
I 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.
Phlabibit,darvlay and mikelom and any other non-christians butt out. RBHILL said he didn't want responses from the likes of you. All though your answers are the best.
(maybe he just didn't want me answering and it was his way of throwing off...)
Originally posted by RBHILL Was Mary a virgin her whole life? I don't think it would be possible because Joseph took her as his wife. And the Bible claims Jesus had half brothers ans sisters. And when he was a yuong child he was left behind in Jerusalem by his parents so I just don't see joseph being with her and not getting some.
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
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
01 Feb '11 08:29
Originally posted by menace71 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
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.
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 darvlay I'm always amazed at how easily the family tree was maintained back in these times. It really is a wonder to behold.
why 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 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.
Mary
31 Jan '11 17:241 edit
Back to Top