Mary's Infidelity

[Webers.Home]

.
● Matt 1:18-19 . . Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His
mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she
was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being
a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away
secretly.

FAQ: Wasn't Joseph supposed to have his betrothed stoned for sleeping
around? (Deut 22:23-27)

A: The covenanted law that Moses' people agreed upon with God in the Old
Testament requires the testimony of a minimum of two witnesses for the
prosecution in capital cases.

● Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he
that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he
shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt
put the evil away from among you.

Sans witnesses even Joseph himself became a suspect; in point of fact, the
prime suspect.

NOTE: Compare the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11).
Jesus had to dismiss the woman because there was no one willing to testify
against her. And even had he known by omniscience that the woman was
guilty, the Lord couldn't testify against her because he wasn't a legitimate
witness; and besides, he would've been the only one whereas the Jews'
covenanted law requires a minimum of two.
_

 

[Chester]

Many years later the Pharisees still knew this about Jesus and they throw the accusation at him in John 8:41:
John 8:41: Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

But PTL for the virgin birth of Jesus - but I am glad Jesus through example shows us that we can live through false misunderstanding and accusation.

 

[Magenta]

.
NOTE: Compare the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11).
Jesus had to dismiss the woman because there was no one willing to testify
against her. And even had he known by omniscience that the woman was
guilty, the Lord couldn't testify against her because he wasn't a legitimate
witness; and besides, he would've been the only one whereas the Jews'
covenanted law requires a minimum of two.
_

There was no man presented as the co-adulterer, a glaring omission according to Leviticus 20:10, and a clue as to the intentions of those who brought her before Jesus, for they sought to trap Him in order to have a basis for accusing Him. None could condemn her because Jesus called them out on their own sins.

 

[Nehemiah6]

...she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit...

Why would you use such a derogatory title in this thread, when the enemies of Christ would make such a false accusation? That title should be changed to "Mary's unquestioning obedience".

 

[soggykitten]

This discussion topic is pointless. And makes a false charge against the mother of God.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he
was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been
conceived.

Both Joseph and Mary had been instructed to give her boy the name Jesus.

● Matt 1:21 . .She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus

● Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus.

People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all
about everybody, viz: they knew Joseph was engaged to a girl whose baby
was, from all appearances, illegitimate. In point of fact, I'd not be surprised
that the rumor mill was confident the baby was Joseph's, especially seeing
as how he stood with its mother for the naming.

The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's families were humiliated by this
business, but it's likely they were.
_

 

[soggykitten]

.
● Luke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he
was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been
conceived.

Both Joseph and Mary had been instructed to give her boy the name Jesus.

● Matt 1:21 . .She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name
Jesus

● Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus.

People in a small town like Nazareth usually know everybody, and know all
about everybody, viz: they knew Joseph was engaged to a girl whose baby
was, from all appearances, illegitimate. In point of fact, I'd not be surprised
that the rumor mill was confident the baby was Joseph's, especially seeing
as how he stood with its mother for the naming.

The Bible doesn't say whether the couple's families were humiliated by this
business, but it's likely they were.
_

Your interjecting your personal extra-Biblical animus into the scriptures pertaining to our Savior and his birth seem to be desperate at this point.
When did you start to fall from grace? Can we help you?

 

[Webers.Home]

.
It's remarkable the number of people I encounter online who sincerely
believe that Joseph shared a home with Jesus' mom with no intention of
ever having any children by her. In other words; they actually believe that
Joseph was celibate in his own home; and consequently Mary too: a young
girl in the prime of life no less. I can't imagine a more dysfunctional
marriage than that. (Imagine kids growing up in a home where parents
never hug, kiss, or display the slightest feelings of romantic affection for
each other.)

Some folk-- apparently inadequately schooled in the birds and the bees -
need to be told that Joseph and his best girl were engaged to be married
before either one of them were informed about a somebody named Jesus.

● Matt 1:18 . .Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother,
Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph.

Since Mary was already engaged to Joseph prior to Gabriel's announcement;
the logical conclusion is that she was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual
reasons that Jewish girls wanted a Jewish husband-- to settle down, cohabit
with a Jewish man, and raise a Jewish family.

And since Joseph was already engaged to Mary prior to the dream sequence,
the logical conclusion is that he was marrying a Jewish girl for the usual
reasons that Jewish guys wanted a Jewish wife-- to settle down, cohabit with
a Jewish woman, and raise a Jewish family.

Since the inspired Gospel narratives do not clearly, and without ambiguity,
indicate otherwise, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of Jewish
experience, that those two Jewish adults fully intended to sleep together
after their wedding just like every other normal Jewish couple did back then.

Another point worth well worth the trouble to refute is that in Catholicism, it
is a sin to marry with no intent of producing children. That sin is based upon
a very early blessing in the book of Genesis before there ever were religions
like Judaism, Christianity, or Catholicism.

● Gen 1:28 . .God blessed them and said to them; Be fruitful and increase in
number

Catholicism regards that blessing as a commandment. Therefore, had Mary
and Joseph made no attempt whatsoever to produce children together, then
they would have been guilty of disobeying that which Rome regards as a
divine fiat. It gets worse.

The Bible's God tempts no man to sin (Jas 1:13). So if He had directed Mary
and Joseph into a celibate, platonic marriage-- thus forcing them to disobey
His early fiat --then according to Rome's thinking; God would have been
guilty of leading Jesus' parents into sin.

NOTE: A very serious ethnical point worth emphasizing is that Joseph and
his wife were both Abraham's posterity. God early-on blessed their
paterfamilias with this remark:

● Gen 22:17 . . In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply
thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea
shore.

Had Joseph not attempted to produce children of his own with his wife, he
would have failed to participate in Abraham's blessing and do his part in
perpetuating his ancestor's seed. In other words: it was Joseph's sacred
privilege, and his sacred duty, to make an honest attempt to have children
with Jesus' mom.
_

 

[GaryA]

This discussion topic is pointless. And makes a false charge against the mother of God.

I am not that crazy about this thread, either; however, I also feel I should point out that this phrase is severely in error.

There is no such thing as "the mother of God"... (as a proper Biblical reference/statement)

God does not have a mother.

Just because Jesus had an earthly mother does not make the phrase "mother of God" valid - because, to say such a phrase indicates "all that is God" - which renders the phrase inaccurate.

 

[soggykitten]

I am not that crazy about this thread, either; however, I also feel I should point out that this phrase is severely in error.

There is no such thing as "the mother of God"... (as a proper Biblical reference/statement)

God does not have a mother.

Just because Jesus had an earthly mother does not make the phrase "mother of God" valid - because, to say such a phrase indicates "all that is God" - which renders the phrase inaccurate.

I meant no offense to you.
I'm going by what was told Mary by the angel in naming her forthcoming child, Emmanuel.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

I'm going by what was told Mary by the angel in naming her forthcoming
child, Emmanuel.

The word "Emmanuel" appears but one time in the entire New Testament at
Matt 1:23, and it's told not by the angel, nor told to either Joseph or Mary.
It's told by Matthew to us, the hearers of the Gospel, to inform us of the
reason for the event.

Here's the text:

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called
Emmanuel" (which means, God with us)."

Now, neither Mary nor Joseph were instructed to name her baby Emmanuel;
they were both told to name him Jesus. (Luke 2:21, and Luke 1:31). In
point of fact, nobody, nowhere in the New Testament that I can find ever
once addressed him, or spoke of him, by that name.

So then, if nether Mary nor Joseph called Jesus by that name, and the Jews
neither spoke of him or addressed by that name, then who might the passage
be speaking of where it says: "his name shall be called Emmanuel"?
_

 

[soggykitten]

.


The word "Emmanuel" appears but one time in the entire New Testament at
Matt 1:23, and it's told not by the angel, nor told to either Joseph or Mary.
It's told by Matthew to us, the hearers of the Gospel, to inform us of the
reason for the event.

Here's the text:

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called
Emmanuel" (which means, God with us)."

Now, neither Mary nor Joseph were instructed to name her baby Emmanuel;
they were both told to name him Jesus. (Luke 2:21, and Luke 1:31). In
point of fact, nobody, nowhere in the New Testament that I can find ever
once addressed him, or spoke of him, by that name.

So then, if nether Mary nor Joseph called Jesus by that name, and the Jews
neither spoke of him or addressed by that name, then who might the passage
be speaking of where it says: "his name shall be called Emmanuel"?
_

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.


Matthew 1:
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ[e] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed[f] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 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. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”

(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Isa 7:14 is commonly believed to specifically predict Jesus; but it primarily
speaks into events back in the Old Testament. (Isa 7:1-25)

● Matt 1:22 . . Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying . . .

Sometimes the word "fulfill" and/or "fulfilled" refers to applying a prophecy
to something other than what it was originally intended. For example; the
virgin spoken of in Isaiah's prophecy was initially a young girl in the
southern kingdom during king Ahaz's reign. In order for her to be of any use
at all for a sign, it was necessary for the girl to be someone with whom Ahaz
was familiar.

FYI: The Hebrew word for "virgin" in Isa 7:14 is 'almah (al-maw') which
simply means a young girl, i.e. it has more to do with age than carnal
experience. The New Testament equivalent is parthenos (par-then'-os)
which means pretty much the same thing. Without some additional
information, it is impossible to determine whether an 'almah and/or a
parthenos has, or has not, experienced carnal relations with a man.

Take Rebecca for example. She was an 'almah (Gen 24:43). But she was
also a bethuwlah (beth-oo-law') which is another Hebrew word for virgins. In
Rebecca's case, the Bible also informs us that she was an 'almah/bethuwlah
who had not yet experienced carnal relations with a man when Abraham's
servant met with her. (Gen 24:16)

Mary was a parthenos (Luke 1:26-27). If that were all that's said about her,
we'd only know that she was a young girl. However, Mary herself informs us
that she had not yet experienced carnal relations with a man when the angel
met with her. (Luke 1:34)

My point of all this is that we should never assume that the word "virgin"
always, and without exception, indicates someone who's never been to bed
with anyone.

Now, back to Emmanuel. That's not supposed to be taken as a name for
God. It simply means God with us; for example:

● Luke 7:16-17 . . And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God,
saying: A great prophet has arisen among us! And: God has visited His
people! And this report concerning him went out all over Judea, and in all
the surrounding district.

It would be nice if God were with everyone following this thread just as He
was with Ahaz when the king and his people were in danger of invasion from
the north; and as He was with Judea when the great prophet Jesus went
about restoring the dead to life; and curing the sick, the lame, and the blind.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
I didn't set this thread up intending for it to be a venue for testimonies,
they're off-topic; but what the hay; maybe it's time for an intermission.

I was christened an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944, and
eventually attended catechism to complete First Holy Communion and
Confirmation.

My siblings are Catholic, my mother was Catholic, my eldest brother entered
the priesthood and made it to the rank of Friar before passing away in May
2018 of cancer. (Though he was a Friar, my brother was no saint. He had a
problem with alcohol till AA helped straighten him out). My wife is a former
Catholic, her dad was Catholic, his wife was Catholic, my aunt and uncle
were Catholics, and my wife's cousins are Catholic; one of them is qualified
to teach Catechism.

I was loyal to Rome for the first 24 years of my life till one day I was
approached by a Conservative Baptist minister who asked me if I was
prepared for Christ's return.

Well; I must've been either asleep or absent the day that the nuns talked
about Jesus coming back because that man's question was the very first
time in my whole life that I can remember somebody telling me.

My initial reaction was alarm because I instinctively knew that were I called
on the carpet for a face-to-face with Jesus, it would not go well for me
because I had a lot to answer for. Well; I don't like being made to feel afraid
so I became indignant and demanded to know why Jesus would come back.
That's when I found out for the very first time that it was in the plan for
Christ to take over the world. (I had somehow missed that in catechism
too.)

Then the minister asked me if I was going to heaven. Well; of course I had
no clue because Catholics honestly don't know what to expect when they
pass away. I was crossing my fingers while in the back of my mind dreading
the worst.

Then the man said; "Don't you know that Jesus died for your sins?"

Well; I had been taught in catechism that Jesus died for the sins of the
world; that much I knew; but honestly believed all along that he had been a
victim of unfortunate circumstances. It was a shock to discover that Jesus'
trip to the cross was deliberate, and that his Father was thinking of me when
His son passed away, viz: my sins were among the sins of the world that
Jesus took to the cross with him.

At that very instant-- scarcely a nanosecond --something took over in my
mind as I fully realized, to my great relief, that heaven was no longer out of
reach, rather, well within my grasp!

That was an amazing experience. In just the two or three minutes of
conversation with that Baptist minister, I obtained an understanding of
Jesus' crucifixion that many tedious years of catechism classes had somehow
failed to get across. Consequently, my confidence in the Roman Catholic
Church was shattered like a bar of peanut brittle candy dropped on the
sidewalk from the tippy top of the Chrysler building.

Long story short; I eventually went with that man to his church and, side by
side with him and a couple of elders, knelt at the rail down front and prayed
a really simple, naive prayer that went something like this;

"God, I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death"

My prayer wasn't much to brag about; but it was the smartest sixteen words
I'd ever spoken up to that time.

● Matt 10:32 . .Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also
acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
_

 

[Benadam]

God does not have a mother

Jesus is God

 

[Benadam]

.
I didn't set this thread up intending for it to be a venue for testimonies,
they're off-topic; but what the hay; maybe it's time for an intermission.

I was christened an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944, and
eventually attended catechism to complete First Holy Communion and
Confirmation.

My siblings are Catholic, my mother was Catholic, my eldest brother entered
the priesthood and made it to the rank of Friar before passing away in May
2018 of cancer. (Though he was a Friar, my brother was no saint. He had a
problem with alcohol till AA helped straighten him out). My wife is a former
Catholic, her dad was Catholic, his wife was Catholic, my aunt and uncle
were Catholics, and my wife's cousins are Catholic; one of them is qualified
to teach Catechism.

I was loyal to Rome for the first 24 years of my life till one day I was
approached by a Conservative Baptist minister who asked me if I was
prepared for Christ's return.

Well; I must've been either asleep or absent the day that the nuns talked
about Jesus coming back because that man's question was the very first
time in my whole life that I can remember somebody telling me.

My initial reaction was alarm because I instinctively knew that were I called
on the carpet for a face-to-face with Jesus, it would not go well for me
because I had a lot to answer for. Well; I don't like being made to feel afraid
so I became indignant and demanded to know why Jesus would come back.
That's when I found out for the very first time that it was in the plan for
Christ to take over the world. (I had somehow missed that in catechism
too.)

Then the minister asked me if I was going to heaven. Well; of course I had
no clue because Catholics honestly don't know what to expect when they
pass away. I was crossing my fingers while in the back of my mind dreading
the worst.

Then the man said; "Don't you know that Jesus died for your sins?"

Well; I had been taught in catechism that Jesus died for the sins of the
world; that much I knew; but honestly believed all along that he had been a
victim of unfortunate circumstances. It was a shock to discover that Jesus'
trip to the cross was deliberate, and that his Father was thinking of me when
His son passed away, viz: my sins were among the sins of the world that
Jesus took to the cross with him.

At that very instant-- scarcely a nanosecond --something took over in my
mind as I fully realized, to my great relief, that heaven was no longer out of
reach, rather, well within my grasp!

That was an amazing experience. In just the two or three minutes of
conversation with that Baptist minister, I obtained an understanding of
Jesus' crucifixion that many tedious years of catechism classes had somehow
failed to get across. Consequently, my confidence in the Roman Catholic
Church was shattered like a bar of peanut brittle candy dropped on the
sidewalk from the tippy top of the Chrysler building.

Long story short; I eventually went with that man to his church and, side by
side with him and a couple of elders, knelt at the rail down front and prayed
a really simple, naive prayer that went something like this;

"God, I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death"

My prayer wasn't much to brag about; but it was the smartest sixteen words
I'd ever spoken up to that time.

● Matt 10:32 . .Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also
acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.
_

Have you ever thought how a virgin birth might change a couple's perception of themselves, their relationship with God and their role in His plan? A profound shift in identity would be an understatement. I think it would have been difficult to use a Sacred vessel for an ordinary purpose especially for a law abiding Jewish man.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

Jesus is God

I'm pretty sure that GaryA's point is simply that God's existence didn't begin
with conception in a woman's womb,

Luke 1:43 is sometimes appropriated as evidence that Mary was God's
mother.

"And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come
to me?"

When Elizabeth made that statement, she was filled with the Holy Ghost
(Luke 1:41) so I think it's safe to assume that when she said "my Lord" she
wasn't talking about God, rather, she was talking about Israel's long-awaited
Messiah; in other words: Elizabeth reiterated the angel's greeting.

"And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall
name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most
High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He
will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and his kingdom will have no
end." (Luke 1:31-35)

NOTE: I think it is very important that we always make a distinct difference
between the Word of John 1:1 and the flesh that Word became in John 1:14. In
other words, it's an error to call Jesus' mom the mother of God when in
reality she was the mother of a man.

Quite a few Christians readily admit to Christ as fully God and fully Man,
when in reality they only believe he's fully God because they're unable to tell
the difference; and cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to take
advantage of the weakness in that area of their faith.
_

 

[p_rehbein]

Thread proof positive that there is NO part of Scripture that will not be subjected to contrarians and their need to cast shadows on His Word......

 

[soggykitten]

.
Isa 7:14 is commonly believed to specifically predict Jesus; but it primarily
speaks into events back in the Old Testament. (Isa 7:1-25)

● Matt 1:22 . . Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying . . .

Sometimes the word "fulfill" and/or "fulfilled" refers to applying a prophecy
to something other than what it was originally intended. For example; the
virgin spoken of in Isaiah's prophecy was initially a young girl in the
southern kingdom during king Ahaz's reign. In order for her to be of any use
at all for a sign, it was necessary for the girl to be someone with whom Ahaz
was familiar.

FYI: The Hebrew word for "virgin" in Isa 7:14 is 'almah (al-maw') which
simply means a young girl, i.e. it has more to do with age than carnal
experience. The New Testament equivalent is parthenos (par-then'-os)
which means pretty much the same thing. Without some additional
information, it is impossible to determine whether an 'almah and/or a
parthenos has, or has not, experienced carnal relations with a man.

Take Rebecca for example. She was an 'almah (Gen 24:43). But she was
also a bethuwlah (beth-oo-law') which is another Hebrew word for virgins. In
Rebecca's case, the Bible also informs us that she was an 'almah/bethuwlah
who had not yet experienced carnal relations with a man when Abraham's
servant met with her. (Gen 24:16)

Mary was a parthenos (Luke 1:26-27). If that were all that's said about her,
we'd only know that she was a young girl. However, Mary herself informs us
that she had not yet experienced carnal relations with a man when the angel
met with her. (Luke 1:34)

My point of all this is that we should never assume that the word "virgin"
always, and without exception, indicates someone who's never been to bed
with anyone.

Now, back to Emmanuel. That's not supposed to be taken as a name for
God. It simply means God with us; for example:

● Luke 7:16-17 . . And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God,
saying: A great prophet has arisen among us! And: God has visited His
people! And this report concerning him went out all over Judea, and in all
the surrounding district.

It would be nice if God were with everyone following this thread just as He
was with Ahaz when the king and his people were in danger of invasion from
the north; and as He was with Judea when the great prophet Jesus went
about restoring the dead to life; and curing the sick, the lame, and the blind.
_

Is God with one who presumes to call the mother of Emmanuel a whore?

 

[soggykitten]

Have you ever thought how a virgin birth might change a couple's perception of themselves, their relationship with God and their role in His plan? A profound shift in identity would be an understatement. I think it would have been difficult to use a Sacred vessel for an ordinary purpose especially for a law abiding Jewish man.

Especially during that time and culture. I would imagine the first thing to come to someones mind learning a virgin unmarried girl was pregnant as other than the source of her pregnancy was the holy spirit.