Lambano
Well-Known Member
- Jul 13, 2021
- 10,556
- 13,222
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
So Joseph married Mary but didn’t have sex?
- Thread starter NotTheRock
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Davy
Well-Known Member
Brethren in Christ Jesus:
The immaculate birth of Lord Jesus Christ through a virgin involved the Power of God, and is not some doctrine started by the Roman Church.
Ahaz, king of Judah, went up to Jerusalem but could not prevail against it, because the king of Syria and the king of Israel (northern ten tribes under the tribe of Ephraim) were confederate with each other. God told Ahaz to not go up, that their confederacy against him would not stand, and that soon Ephraim would be broken and not be a people (i.e., scattering of the ten tribes by the kings of Assyria).
So God told Ahaz to ask of Him for a 'sign' that what He said would happen.
Isa 7:10-14
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD."
13 And he said, "Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
KJV
Thus the fact that Lord Jesus Christ was born of a "virgin" was to be a SIGN from God to Ahaz king of Judah. It didn't happen until later, yet it was fulfilled just as God told Ahaz, a VIRGIN BIRTH. So who can go against the Power of God?
Starting early in Genesis, the devil sought to end the Seed of the Woman, (i.e., the lineage that Christ would be born through). Throughout Old Testament history, and into The New Testament, Satan tried many times to prevent Christ's birth. And Satan's workers here on earth have always denied that SIGN from God about Jesus being born of a 'virgin'. Many of those began creeping in among the Jews of the tribe of Judah early in its history. The scribes of Israel were of the Kenites of the land of Canaan.
Jude 4 warned us about this creeping in that was ordained to happen, and we, Christ's Church, are to know about it. So when you hear of someone trying to usurp the Power of God, especially over a SIGN which was to serve as miracle to His people, especially the king line of Israel, the house of David, then we are to sit up and take notice that one trying to reverse the Power of God got their ideas directly from the devil who failed in preventing Christ's birth.
The immaculate birth of Lord Jesus Christ through a virgin involved the Power of God, and is not some doctrine started by the Roman Church.
Ahaz, king of Judah, went up to Jerusalem but could not prevail against it, because the king of Syria and the king of Israel (northern ten tribes under the tribe of Ephraim) were confederate with each other. God told Ahaz to not go up, that their confederacy against him would not stand, and that soon Ephraim would be broken and not be a people (i.e., scattering of the ten tribes by the kings of Assyria).
So God told Ahaz to ask of Him for a 'sign' that what He said would happen.
Isa 7:10-14
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD."
13 And he said, "Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
KJV
Thus the fact that Lord Jesus Christ was born of a "virgin" was to be a SIGN from God to Ahaz king of Judah. It didn't happen until later, yet it was fulfilled just as God told Ahaz, a VIRGIN BIRTH. So who can go against the Power of God?
Starting early in Genesis, the devil sought to end the Seed of the Woman, (i.e., the lineage that Christ would be born through). Throughout Old Testament history, and into The New Testament, Satan tried many times to prevent Christ's birth. And Satan's workers here on earth have always denied that SIGN from God about Jesus being born of a 'virgin'. Many of those began creeping in among the Jews of the tribe of Judah early in its history. The scribes of Israel were of the Kenites of the land of Canaan.
Jude 4 warned us about this creeping in that was ordained to happen, and we, Christ's Church, are to know about it. So when you hear of someone trying to usurp the Power of God, especially over a SIGN which was to serve as miracle to His people, especially the king line of Israel, the house of David, then we are to sit up and take notice that one trying to reverse the Power of God got their ideas directly from the devil who failed in preventing Christ's birth.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Both John chapter 1 and Hebrews 10:5 disagree applying 'begotten' as it pertains to a flesh man & woman.
The WORD that was GOD was never "begotten".
Only the physical body for the WORD was prepared in the womb of Mary when the HOLY SPIRIT overshadowed her.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
If you say they disagree, that is your issue to resolve.
God so loved the world that He made a body for Yeshua and beamed it into Miriam's womb. So that He would not have to do something as dirty and nasty and sinful as sex.
Sorry that is not there.
God created a body that was a God. That is not the Son of God.
I go with the scriptural description of the event.
Scriptural understanding is not about what you like and don't like. It is what it is.
We are all sons and daughters of God, but if you say that makes us like Yeshua......I will have to disagree.
Moonwood
Member
Matthew wasn’t choosing between “birth” and “death.” He was marking the only boundary relevant to his point: the period before Jesus’ birth, when the question of paternity matters. Koine Greek heos does not imply that the opposite happened afterward; it simply marks the limit of the statement. That’s why Scripture can say, “Michal had no children until the day of her death,” without implying she bore children after dying. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the theological issue ends — not because anything changed afterward. The inference of later intercourse is imported, not implied.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
"God is not a man that He should lie"
GOD's Truth is as simple as 1,2,3 = that simple!
#1 - The Scriptures Say we are to believe John 1:1 = The WORD was GOD and thus unbegotten in HIS ETERNAL SPIRIT
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us = This is the Point in Time that JESUS is begotten of the FATHER
#2 - Hebrews 10:5 = Only a flesh body was prepared inside Mary's womb for the WORD to Come into the world as a man.
#3 - Philippians 2:8 = And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
in appearance
σχήματι (schēmati)
Noun - Dative Neuter Singular
Strong's Greek 4976: Fashion, habit, form, appearance. From the alternate of echo; a figure, i.e. external condition.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Who said He lied?
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; Hebrew 10:5
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:8
I do not see a lie here.?????
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Neither do i = which is why i posted those scriptures!
Which pertains to: "God is not a man that HE should lie"
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Lambano
Well-Known Member
- Jul 13, 2021
- 10,556
- 13,222
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
No. It is highly uncommon for women to have babies after they die. (At least, I don't know of any.) The common pattern is for married couples to have sexual intercourse after marriage, with a hiatus in the latter stages of pregnancy, followed by a resumed pattern of sexual intercourse. Matthew is using an "until" statement to highlight a deviation from expected conditions with a specified endpoint. The unstated assumption of this kind of "until" statement is that normal conditions will resume following the specified boundary point. Normal conditions for Michal after her death would not involve childbearing.
Last edited:
Moonwood
Member
Appealing to “normal marital patterns” doesn’t change how Koine Greek works. Matthew isn’t describing Joseph and Mary’s marriage; he’s marking the period before Jesus’ birth when the question of paternity matters. Greek heos with a negative clause does not imply that the opposite happened afterward — that’s why Scripture can say, “Michal had no children until the day of her death,” without implying she bore children after dying. Matthew sets the boundary at the birth because that is where the theological issue ends. The inference of resumed intercourse is not stated by Matthew; it is supplied by the reader.
Similar threads
