posted on December 25, 2004 05:13:23 PM newI've had a harder time believing that Mary remained a virgin throughout her married life. I see no point to that.
Probably down to Joseph. Think about it--probably had performance anxiety. Wouldn't a god be a hard act to follow?
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on December 25, 2004 05:23:23 PM new
As the story I referenced earlier states, Joseph was a much older widower. Mary started out as his ward, and later he married her as a legal solution to inheritance questions.
Joseph was either too old to care about sex, or maybe he felt it was inappropriate or something. Viagra probably could have fixed the problem, bu they hadn't invented it yet
I don't have a problem believing Mary remained a virgin. In those days cheating on your husband was punishable by death or exile. Better to do without than die in disgrace.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!
posted on December 25, 2004 06:15:09 PM new
I, too, believe in the Virgin Birth. But I also agree with cherishedclutter...I don't feel that Mary remained virgin for the rest of her life. This was more likely a movement within the Church to elevate Mother Mary to a higher level, to make her as the "second Eve".
As for Joseph being "too old" to care about sex...I don't believe that. I do remember Joseph thinking about bailing when he found out Mary was pregnant, since he didn't have nothing to do with that, and that for that time period it was exceptional that Joseph stayed with Mary because of the "scandal". Also, wasn't Joseph a carpenter, and taught Jesus the trade? Doesn't sound like a man too old to care about sex.
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
[ edited by koto1 on Dec 25, 2004 06:19 PM ]
posted on December 25, 2004 06:19:06 PM new
cherished: I was taught that the immaculate conception of Mary doesn't mean that her parents were without sin, but that by a singular act of god at the time of her animation (being given a soul) she was exempted from any stain of original sin..but you're right...It's my tendency to use the same term to describe both the supernatural conception of Jesus and the virgin birth using the same term. I tend to think that for most people, accepting one is a prerequisite to accepting the other.
mea culpa
kraft: The old testament is full of references to cannabis. Don't forget, god first appeared to Moses in a cloud
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on December 25, 2004 06:31:57 PM new
I find this discussion very interesting and I have a question.
Libra posted this earlier:
He was therefore a widower with children when he took Mary who was with child into his home. There were no subsequent marital demands since Joseph was elderly. Joseph made no appearances during Jesus’ ministry since he was already deceased. Mary raised Joseph’s children.
If Joseph had children young enough for Mary to raise, why would he be considered too old to be interested in sex with Mary? Does anyone know when he actually died? Or how old Jesus was when he died?
Does anyone here believe that Jesus was married and had children?
Be kind. Everyone is fighting their own secret battles.
...Author Unknown
posted on December 25, 2004 06:44:40 PM new
"Does anyone know when he actually died? Or how old Jesus was when he died?"
No. There is obviously even much debate on his age when Jesus was born, much less any info about his death. Joseph, unfortunately, was not considered to be an important character in the story.
Didja ever wonder why the geneaologies in Matthew & Luke show Joseph's lineage when there is no genetic link between Joseph and Jesus? What were they thinking?
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!
posted on December 25, 2004 07:36:21 PM newDidja ever wonder why the geneaologies in Matthew & Luke show Joseph's lineage when there is no genetic link between Joseph and Jesus? What were they thinking?
Maybe they were thinking Joseph was Jesus' father
Another possible solution to that I've heard is the assumption that Mary and Joseph were of the same tribe (Judah), since marrying in to other tribes was frowned upon. From that assumption, it can be speculated that they may both have had Davidic ancestors.
Gtootie: It doesn't make any cultural sense for a man who went among the people preaching as a rabbi to have been single. The first thing a rabbi was expected to do was take a wife and begin a family. That is still true today among conservative Jewish sects. An adult, unmarried man claiming to be a rabbi would have been an object of suspicion to many in that time. I think it's entirely possible, and in fact likely that he was married. And if he was married, he probably had or intended to have children. Unfortunately, the early church had to make him into something other, and denying his earthliness by failing to include that information in the bible helped them do it.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on December 25, 2004 08:24:38 PM new
So...did we solve the mystery? what's the general consenses...
(1)yes Mary was a virgin and the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth?
(2)Or were these all just drug induced stories from some pot smoking group of hippies back then?
Crikes.. wouldn't that be funny...if it was just a yellow submarine, or puff the magic dragon story... and ever since generations took it as Gospel and formed their beliefs around it....
that would be the best practical joke ever!
posted on December 26, 2004 08:47:49 AM new
Profe:
"in fact likely that he was married. And if he was married, he probably had or intended to have children."
If you want to take John as "Gospel", then Jesus knew his fate from the very beginning. If you knew 100% for a fact that you were going to die a horrible death and be condemned as a criminal, you'd probabaly avoid making a family as well. If Jesus had a wife and kids what would have been their fate?
No, I think he was single. I'm not saying he was a virgin or anything, but I don't think he would have married.
Maggie:
I doubt if it was a drug-induced hallucination, but there is no way to take to conflicting Bible stories at 100% face value.
I tend to "believe" the Mark version. The Luke & Matthew birth stories were just added later to fill in Jesus's unknown early history. No, I do NOT believe the Bible is 100%infallible or perfect. It was written by men, and those men all had their agendas to push.
Mark: The earliest, and in my opinion, probably the most historically accurate of the Gospels.
Matthew: The most Jewish oriented of the Gospels. Written when the "Jesus Sect" of Judaism was gaining in popularity, but now yet considered a religion.
Mark: Intended to Romanize and popularize the new Christian religion among Gentiles.
John: Took the man-Jesus and made him part of God. This is one you either believe or you don't.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!
posted on December 26, 2004 09:03:19 AM new
I was being goofy in my first answer here profe. Yes I believe it was a true 'immaculate conception', as in one or all of the gospels tell of the angel who visted her one night, and one also 'visted' Joseph telling him. I don't believe that Joseph was a widower with children though. I do think that after Jesus was born, they may have had other children, thats entirely possible.
And classics right, he was 33 when he was crucified.
Hope everyone had a great Christmas (I did! ) and have an even better New Year!
posted on December 26, 2004 09:24:45 AM new
In my previous answer, I listed Mark twice. LUKE was the one who tried to popularize it among the Romans & Gentiles.
And I thought were talking about Joseph's age in one of my previous answers. Yes Jesus was about 33. No one knows absolutely, but most scholars believe he was 32-34.
Born around 3-4 BC, Died in 30 AD. I don't remember the details, but someone calculated wrong when setting up the calendar and placing 0 BC/AD.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!
posted on December 26, 2004 09:42:15 AM new
When I asked the question of how old Jesus was when he died, I was referring to Joseph. I have always believed that Joseph was older than Mary, but not that much. I thought he was in his twenties, maybe early thirties. I have never heard anything about him being an old man.
I have also always believed that Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage with children after Jesus was born.
As for Jesus himself, I was taught that he was not married and did not have children. I believe that he was a virgin.
Even though I believe the overall message of the Bible, I agree that over time, there were probably some facts changed to suit the agenda of whoever was in power at the time.
Be kind. Everyone is fighting their own secret battles.
...Author Unknown
posted on December 26, 2004 09:55:24 AM new
Here is some information about the wedding of Joseph and Mary. I didn't want to cut and past because of clickable links in this article.
posted on December 26, 2004 10:14:17 AM new
American Standard Bible taken from the internet. Since I have moved I haven't been able to find my mothers bible but in it she had everything written in it. Although not a true religious person she did work for the church and studied the bible.
Mt 1:16 - Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
Mt 1:18 - 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.
Mt 1:20 - But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Mt 1:24 - And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took {Mary} as his wife,
Mt 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
posted on December 26, 2004 12:10:16 PM new
LoL Maggie! I've thought of that many times. Naturally, nobody believes it's a possibility but for the life of me, I just can't see the maker of the universe and what's in it, simply giving us a book, written by people who had visions and dreams, as proof of his (God's) existance. Wouldn't the book be a tad more accurate if it truly came from God? We're suppose to believe that God impregnated a woman, and her child was the Messiah, and God allowed people to kill this Messiah for our sins?? What sins?
posted on December 26, 2004 04:20:42 PM new
That's right Kraft, and not only are we supposed to believe that a human woman was impregnated by god, we're also supposed to believe that her son made the dead walk, made food multiply itself, created wine out water, made it so that wine and bread turns into his still quivering flesh and blood in our stomachs. and miraculously rose from the dead. We're supposed to accept all that without so much as a blink of an eye.
We're also supposed to think that the miraculous and no more incredible tales told by other religions are at best just "silly superstitions", or at worst, the devil's work.
There's something wrong with that picture if you ask me.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on December 26, 2004 08:15:16 PM new.....and not only are we supposed to believe that a human woman was impregnated by god, we're also supposed to believe that her son made the dead walk, made food multiply itself, created wine out water, made it so that wine and bread turns into his still quivering flesh and blood in our stomachs. and miraculously rose from the dead. We're supposed to accept all that without so much as a blink of an eye.
Profe, somewhere here awhile back, at some point I *thought* you used to be Catholic? (though I may be wrong) You should know then, no matter how it may sound 'silly' to people, that it all boils down to individiual faith that the child born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph was the Messiah most had waited for. And we do read and believe in the Bible, but mostly do rely on faith
(and I'm not trying to start a row, that is my belief in my own faith, and you have your own... Happy Holidays! )
posted on December 26, 2004 09:06:39 PM newProfe, somewhere here awhile back, at some point I *thought* you used to be Catholic? (though I may be wrong) You should know then, no matter how it may sound 'silly' to people, that it all boils down to individiual faith that the child born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph was the Messiah most had waited for. And we do read and believe in the Bible, but mostly do rely on faith
"Used to be" is the operative phrase, Near, although I still pay homage to several saints and the Virgin of Guadalupe, I've pretty much abandoned the rest of it. I'm stll a cultural catholic, I guess... As a kid I took part with my cousins and uncles in a Penitente Brotherhood. I'm still active in a local "Confradia Guadalupana", which is a men's organization of charity and humane works dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe...I wouldn't presume to criticize your faith, and I believe in the power of personal faith. I'm not sure how it works, but it doesn't really matter. I've seen it's positive effects. I believe those effects can spring from most any strongly held personal spirituality. My ancestors, before the inquisition, were Jews. Until very recently, we had hold over customs that I've discovered probably came down from our Jewish ancestors.
I don't have any problem with Jesus being divinely inspired, "holy" if you wish, any more than I have with Mohammed, Buddah, the Dalai Lama, or the medicine lady my wife goes to to treat her eczema having special gifts. I do have a problem with being told by another human being that I'm wrong and going to be eternally punished for my beliefs, though... I wasn't looking to argue here either. I find the whole history of the formation and spread of the christian faith fascinating and horrible at the same time. Something to gab about, especially at this time of the year.
Happy Yule!
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on December 26, 2004 11:34:36 PM new
Gtootie-According to what I read Joseph died at the age of 110. Jesus started his ministry at the age of 30 and was crucified at the age of 33.
posted on December 26, 2004 11:51:37 PM new
Prof, explain to me the Virgin of Guadalupe... Is this Christian Faith? Do you believe that they think she was the Virgin Mary?
If you think it is then how did civilization find out about this? Through word of mouth or do they have their own religious book.
Unless there is hard and fast evidence not spoken to others or through a book then can we assume that it is hearsay also?
Now no argument here just interested.
Religion is based on what we read but interesting things are happening in Greece with the archological digs. It has just surfaced in the news this past week.
posted on December 27, 2004 08:08:33 AM newProf, explain to me the Virgin of Guadalupe... Is this Christian Faith? Do you believe that they think she was the Virgin Mary? If you think it is then how did civilization find out about this? Through word of mouth or do they have their own religious book.
Who's "they" ? What civilization?
Of course it's Christian, but it's also more.
I'll give you the shortest version I can. Guadalupe is the Patroness of the Americas. She is the protector of all of the native and latino people on both continents. Here's a very short version of her story.
When the Spanish explorers first entered the new world, it was officially believed that the indigenous people were "sub-human". Slavery was officially illegal in Spain and her territories, but since these indians were deemed less than human, it was believed to be OK to treat them essentially as slaves.
In the winter of 1531, about 10 years after the Spanish conquest of what would become Mexico City, a Nahuatl indian man who had recently been baptized Catholic was walking past a hill called Tepeyac, outside the city. This man had recently been christened Juan Diego. It was usual for baptized indians to be given spanish names. Juan Diego was upset over the death of his mother and some other illness in his family. As he walked past Tepeyac hill, a dark skinned female apparition appeared and spoke to him and identified herself as Mary, the Mother of Jesus. She spoke to him in Nahuatl, his own language, as he did not speak Spanish.
After his conversation with the Virgin, Juan Diego went to tell the Bishop of the miracle. The Bishop did not believe him, feeling that the Blessed Mother would not stoop to speak to an indian. He told Juan Diego to return to Tepeyac and see if the apparition came back, and to bring him a sign of proof the next time, probably thinking that this would get rid of the foolish indian once and for all.
Juan Diego went back to Tepeyac, and eventually the Virgin reappeared to him. He told her the Bishop did not accept the miracle and insisted on proof, whereupon the apparition caused the hillside to bloom with beautiful roses. The indians in those days wore a woven cotton zarape sort of thing called a tilma. Juan Diego gathered up the roses in his tilma and took them to the Bishop.
When the bishop asked to see this supposed miracle, Juan Diego opened his tilma and the miraculous roses spilled out. Roses were not known in the Americas at that time, and they certainly would not have bloomed in the Winter at 7000 feet. In addition to the roses, Juan Diego's tilma had been miraculously imprinted with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The bishop had no choice but to recommend that the miracle be accepted by the church in Rome, and it eventually was. A cathedral was constructed on the site, and several have been built there in subsequent years. Juan Diego was recently canonized by the church. He is now Saint Juan Diego. His tilma, bearing the image of the Virgin, is framed and kept on display in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Guadalupe outside Mexico City, where it is visited by millions of pilgrims yearly, especially on December 12, the Feast of the Virgin. It is accepted by the church as a miraculous relic. Juan Diego's official canonization mass was held there and conducted by the Pope.
What's important about Guadalupe, whether one accepts the actual miracle or not, is this: Once it was accepted by the church as real, the Spanish were forced to conclude that if the Blessed Virgin appeared to and spoke to an indian in his native language, the indians must be fully human. Concluding this, the old system of slavery was ended, and a whole new way of treating the indigenous population began. The single event of her appearance changed the course of history in the Americas.
What has always fascinated me about this story, and what used to get me into trouble with priests and nuns, is the fact that, before the arrival of the Spanish, the hill named Tepeyac was believed by the Aztecs to be the home of their earth goddess, whose name was Tonantzin. She regularly made appearances there to Aztec priests, who visited her for guidance and blessing.
I don't know what's there, and it doesn't matter if it's Mary the mother of Jesus, or Tonantzin the mother of the Aztecs. To me, it's a very real, very powerful female force which changed the history of the people of the Americas, and continues to effect the lives of those who pay homage to her.
That's about as short as I could make it. There's lots of online information about La Guadalupe.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on December 27, 2004 09:36:08 AM new
Wow, I just learned something.
Yes, I believe it, just don't know if it was 'Godly'. Maybe just a greater power manipulating the matrix.
My favorite skit ever is the one where the Terminator was sent back to save Jesus from Judas' duplicity. The Terminator keeps blowing Judas away and Jesus keeps bringing him back to life. Too funny!
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
Sniping works up a thirst"