Interesting News article

Carson

Your logic, Carson, has a major fallacy in it, as it does not take in all the relevant Scripture here. If Mary had sexual relations with Joseph she would not have produced a son that would have produced as son who would have been called "the Son of the Most High," signifying divine sonship, and Mary knew this.

In Eastern countries then, as they still do now, parents arranged marriages for their children. This was the case between Mary and Joseph. They would have followed this custom. There was no such thing in the Bible as the modern concept of "falling in love," or "dating." Parents of the Bride were very careful to look for a suitable husband for their daughter, and on the other side parents of the Bridegroom were very careful to look for a suitable bride for their son. All this can be borne out in Genesis chapter 24, as Abraham's servant goes out in search for a bride for Isaac (who incidentally does not marry until 40 years of age). Patience is a virtue. The parents would find out all they could about the prospective spouse of their child. This would even include the family history--their genealogy. What kind of family did he/she come from? Who were their ancestors? This was all important information that both Joseph and Mary would not have been ignorant of.
They would have been knowledgeable of the information given in the genealogies in Matthew one (of Joseph), and in Luke two (of Mary), not because it is written there, but because it was their obligation to know about these things before they got married. It would have been common information to them.
Now look at the information given. First look at the information given in Matthew--the genealogy of Joseph:

Joseph was indeed of the line of David. That is why they went to Bethlehem, the city of David when the census was taken (Luke 2:1-4).
But Joseph and Mary knew that any child born of Joseph would never be able to inherit the throne of David. That would be an impossibility. You see, back in the days of Jechoniah's reign, Jechoniah had brought a curse upon himself:

Jeremiah 22:24-30
24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;
25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans.
26 And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die.
27 But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return.
28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
--Verse 30, in the strongest language possible, says that the descendants of Jeconiah will be childless, that his seed shall not prosper, none of his seed shall prosper, and none shall ever sit on the throne of Judah. This was the curse against Jechoniah.

In 2Sam.7:16, the Lord had made a promise to David: "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever."
Several generations Jechoniah was cursed. This physical link was cursed by God.
Joseph, the legal father of Jesus was of this cursed line.
Mat.1:12 "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;"

The only solution to this problem was that Mary herself was a descendent of Nathan, another son of David (Luke 3:31), who was not of that cursed line.
There was no other way that the Lord Jesus could have escaped that curse. The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth is the only way the Lord could be true to His promise to David and His curse on Jehoiachim.
Gabriel addresses Mary with "Hail!" which was not an uncommon greeting.
He says that Jesus "will be called the Son of the Most High," which signifies divine sonship--a quality that the Davidic Kings beginning with Solomon shared.
The Lord God will give Jesus the throne of His father David.
He will have a "kingdom" of which "there will be no end."

It is not any wonder that Mary exclaimed:
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
--She did not know a man, could not know a man, that would be a rightful heir to the throne of David, and whose descendant, as previously described to her would be:

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
--There was no possibility that Joseph could father such a child. Not just any one could do this. She did not know a man who could do this. She was completely bewildered: Why? She had not know a man sexually, period. She had not known a man, and could not know a man of the right calibre--that would produce a child that would the rightful heir to the throne of David, because Joseph was of a cursed line.
DHK

 

The "Most High" is God:
EL ELYON: 'Most High" (from "to go up") Deut. 26:19, 32:8; Psa. 18:13; Gen. 14:18; Nu. 24:16; Psa. 78:35, 7:17, 18:13, 97:9, 56:2, 78:56, 18:13; Dan. 7:25, 27; Isa. 14:14.

And you men are so funny about this pregnancy of Mary's. She would have known within a month at the least she was pregnant: she would have missed her period. By four months she would have felt the baby move.

The other point is that Mary went to visit Elizabeth shortly after the Annunciation and stayed with her for three months, or until John was born if Elizabeth delivered at nine months...

So if Mary was not sure when she started out, she for sure knew by the time she came home that she was pregnant!

The point about the legal royal line coming through the father is an important one, though. Since adopted sons were legal inheritors, Jesus belonged on the throne legally both via Joseph and via God. His blood right to the throne came via Mary, as the blood lines were traced through the women.

 

Hi DHK,

Well, that's really interesting: the cursed line theory. I've never heard that one before. You know, I'm going to stop arguing at this point in time for the sake of charity. I think you're going a little overboard with this one, but I'm not going to pursue it. And, we all need a rest.

God bless you,

Carson

 

DHK,

Your argument doesn't hold any higher of a candle than Carson's.

Mary is told that she will have the Son of the Most High. We agree that "the Most High" is God. You say she would have automatically known that this means she would be giving birth to "the Son of God," who is God Himself.

Mary was shocked, because she was a virgin (had not had sexual relations). If you say she knew that by "the Son of the Most High" that she knew that meant she would be birthing "God," why would she be questioning her virginity? Was God going to come down there and impregnate her?

Mary was questioning her sexual relations with man. "I know not man," or, "for I am a virgin." Women can have sexual relations with men, but not with God. If Mary knew right then and there, before she was told that she would conceive by the Holy Spirit, that she would be giving birth to God, why would she bother questioning her virginity? God is not man (before Jesus came), and thus God would not have sexual relations with Mary, and surely Mary knew this.

Therefore, it is ignorant to think that Mary, knowing that she would conceive God, would question her virginity. Therefore, by "Son of the Most High," she was aware that this referred to God, but she was still expecting sexual relations with a man in order to conceive this child. Who would this man be? Joseph, for they were betrothed.

Oh, but since they are bethrothed, the promise of the conception of a child is not awkward, and would not warrent a response like Mary's.

Thus, your argument fails.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

You said that his decendants would be "childless," and yet Mary and Joseph had children? Get your ideas straight, please.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK was quoting Jeremiah 22:30, the context shows that Jeconiah was not childless, the expression "Write ye this man childless" is used to show that he would be considered childless because neither he nor any of his offspring would prosper on the throne as the rest of the verse shows. As DHK said, this was the curse against Jeconiah. Jesus who was born of Mary, not Joseph now holds the kingship and the descendants of Jeconiah (including the sons of Joseph) no longer have a claim to the throne.

 

DHK was quoting Jeremiah 22:30, the context shows that Jeconiah was not childless, the expression "Write ye this man childless" is used to show that he would be considered childless because neither he nor any of his offspring would prosper on the throne as the rest of the verse shows. As DHK said, this was the curse against Jeconiah. Jesus who was born of Mary, not Joseph now holds the kingship and the descendants of Jeconiah (including the sons of Joseph) no longer have a claim to the throne.</font>[/QUOTE]So why didn't Mary say, "How can this be, since I am bethrothed to Joseph, of the cursed line?" instead of making reference to her virginal state. If she was honestly aware of Joseph's cursed line, then her virginal status would be unimportant, for even after marital relations with Joseph, she could not give birth to the Son of the Most High.

Therefore, it can only be assumed that she was not aware of this, or, at least, that did not play into her response to the angel.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant -

This argument type is a logical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance. Actually, this whole thread is one big False Dilemma logical fallacy.

Here are the facts:

1. Scripture is not explicit in regard to Mary's vow of virginity (neither for or against).

To say Mary took a vow based upon scripture is useless, as it is not shown (never said she took a vow).

To say Mary did not take a vow based upon scripture is useless, as it is not shown (never said she did not take a vow).

What about inexplicit references from scripture?

1. There is no way to deduce that Mary took a vow based upon solely the bible. One must produce extra-biblical material to support this position. Most non-Catholics will not give these sources much credit so it is futile to use to try and convince non-Catholics.

2. There are alternate, and more biblically sound arguments for Mary not taking a vow when taken as a whole.

CONCLUSION

Attempting to quote one verse to show a vow was taken is not feasible. Similarly, attempting to quote one specific verse to show she did not (explicity) take a vow is not feasible. What one must do is to show either position in context to other passages in the bible. Quite frankly, there has not been a valid argument showing this for Mary taking a vow.

We have already been over Luke, showing how the verse does not support a vow (even went into the greek).

We have seen the cursed line theory, and interesting theory indeed.

It has been advocated that the word 'until' (Mt 1:24) be thought as it is trulely defined because of the qualifier 'when'.

Oh well....

In Christ,
jason

 

the basic truth is that the Catholic's are arguing from a position of silence

Ah, but Tradition is loud and clear.

You cannot read into Scripture that which is not there.

Unless, of course, it implicitly requests that which seemingly is being read into Scripture.

Take the Scriptures as they are, without reading any thing extra into it.

Like authentic Tradition? I refuse to impoverish the context of Scripture.

Blessings,

Carson

 

Which, of couse, is useless when trying to figure out what the bible says.

Unless, of course, that which is purportedly implied is actually refuted elsewhere.

I am sure you don't, but you seemingly wish to rewrite scripture and its context.

In Christ,
jason

 

Well folks, the plot thickens.

Scholars insist: inscription is a fraud
Israel Insider posted exclusively on October 29 the report of an expert of ancient scripts and writing systems who claimed that while the burial box appeared to be genuine, as was the first part of the inscription, the second half of the inscription, "brother of Jesus," was a "poorly executed fake" and a later addition.

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El1599&enZone=Culture&enVersion=0&

 

Interesting to note:

It would appear that people as early as the 2nd, or at least as late as the 7th century, believed James to be the half-brother of Jesus. Interesting indeed.

jason

 

Jason,

You'll give credance to an added text to the side of a coffin, possibly as late as 600 A.D., and yet you have major problems giving credance to many of the early Church fathers. You have no idea who might have added this text, "brother of Jesus," and yet you are willing to put your trust that they knew what they were doing.

Why?

God bless,

Grant

 

Who said I give it credence? I never did. I did, however, say that it was interesting that people believed Jesus to have a half-brother in that timeframe. Interesting because certain Catholics would have us believe that all of tradition is in aggrement over issues and we non-catholics simply reject all of the catholic traditions. This simple example shows that the catholic church (this is for you T2U) picks and chooses which traditions it would believe and which it rejects. Jesus having a brother was known and believed, but the catholic church could not have this if Mary was to be a perpetual virgin so the CC rejected this tradition. Picking and choosing.

Now, this is self evident. I would respect arguments that address this issue, not just dismiss it. The problem is one of honesty. I am honest in my approach of history, while the catholic church is quite dishonest; wishing to rewrite what happened over and over again. Did Jesus have brother and sisters? The simple explanation from the bible is yes. From history? There is support throughout the 2000 years of Christianity. Now? Most everyone (biblical scholars) acknowledges Jesus having siblings.

So, how will you pick and choose your argument to defend the catholic church?

BTW. Who also said I don't give early Christian 'fathers' credence? Not me. If what they say conforms with the bible, great. If not, toss out the teachings.

jason

 

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "[The Church] picks and chooses which traditions it would believe and which it rejects."

Most certainly!

As late as A.D. 324, the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote,

"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon ... Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." (History of the Church, 3:3:1, 3:25:3)

In the same way the Church picked and chose 2 Peter from the tradition that said it was Scripture, it did not pick and did not choose the tradition that outrightly rejected 2 Peter as Scripture. This process of guided by the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church into all truth.

You wrote, "Jesus having a brother was known and believed, but the catholic church could not have this if Mary was to be a perpetual virgin so the CC rejected this tradition."

The Church has not rejected whether Jesus had brothers or not. He very well may have had brothers through Joseph's former marriage, before Joseph was widowed. The Church has clarified that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Whether Joseph had other children before his marriage to Mary or not has not been defined or clarified by the Church, nor does it need be presently.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 11, 2002, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Just so you know it. Some catholics here would have us believe there is no picking. This was just to clarify that.

Actually, I would have respect had this been said orginally. Instead, the catholic position it to try and support James NOT being the brother of Jesus. This approach involves distortions and contortions. It cannot stand on its own.

As for Mary's virignity, we have been over that. There is no place in scripture you can support this view. It takes extra biblical sources, which you, as a catholic, are allowed to use for your doctrine. The problem is proving that to someone who recognizes the flaw in your traditional methods.

In Christ,
jason

 

To even suggest that Joseph had a previous marriage, and then married Mary, whom you hold in such high esteem--to the point of adoration and worship, is to do a great injustice to Mary--who herself would have only married a virgin. You must contort this to try and fit in your own unbiblical doctrines.

Jesus had brothers by Josheph and Mary:
Mat.13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

In order to deny the plain teaching of this verse you have to contort the Scriptures elsewhere, as you are doing above. There is no evidence that Joseph was married previously. If there was provide the evidence. Give the Scripture. Your doctrines fall apart outside of Scripture. You cannot prove your doctrines using Scripture alone.
DHK

 

And yet you argue that your view is flawless, which I could just as easily call a flaw. You're referral to our methods as having a flaw, something that someone merely needs to "recognize" is begging the question. You have not proven that your method is flawless, and thus you cannot claim that ours has flaws.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

Adoring Mary again, am I, DHK? Like I said: in one ear, and out the other.

The first half of your argument is in no way rational, as it's based on pure emotional attacks and zero logic.

The second half has been just as much proven as the your belief that those people from the children of Mary. They are the "brethren of Jesus," but not mentioned as children of Mary, so you're belief takes as much implicit interpretation as ours does.

Now, based on the way you contort Truth to fit your agenda, the way you insert words into Catholic beliefs so that you may better attack them, and the way you hardly ever truly treat me like a brother in Christ, I'm afraid I don't see a reason to trust your interpretation over the solid Truth found in the Church of Christ, to which the Holy Spirit has led me.

God bless,

Grant