Mary's Infidelity

Webers_Home · Jul 20, 2020

.
Continuing from post No.19

When someone is on their deathbed, in their last moments, sometimes they
begin to perceive that Hell is more than just academic; they instinctively
know it's coming and likely to become very concerned about ending up
there. In moments like that, people don't need religion, no, they need a
knight in shining armor, so to speak, and it so happens there's one available.

● Luke 2:8-12 . .And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby,
keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to
them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

. . . But the angel said to them; "Don't be afraid. I bring you good news of
great joy that will be for all the people. Today, in the town of David, a savior
has been born to you; he is Messiah, the Lord."

The angel announced the birth of a savior; defined by Webster's as one who
rescues. We've all seen examples-- lifeguards, firemen, cops, emergency
medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and mountain rescue
teams. Rescue workers typically save people in distress who are facing
imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything
about it.

In other words: Jesus Christ is a lifeline, so to speak, that God is all set to
throw to anyone and everyone for whom destiny in Hell is a foregone
conclusion.

● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story
short: Moses' people became weary of eating manna all the time at every
meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine
benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational;
angrily demanding tastier food.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; God
sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking
people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged
Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to cobble a replica of
the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from
snakebite could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the replica was the only God-given remedy for the
people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church
attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not
the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday
school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments,
not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The replica was it; nothing
else would suffice to save their lives.

As an allegory, Moses' replica indicates that Christ's crucifixion for the sins of
the world is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when
people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify
for safety. Those who reject his crucifixion as the only God-given rescue
from a fate worse than death, are already on the docket to face it.

● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does
not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the
name of God's one and only Son.

» His son's "name" in this case is relative to Moses' replica of the deadly
snakes.
_

Webers_Home · Jul 21, 2020

.
It's remarkable the number of people I encounter online who sincerely
believe that Joseph shared a life 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.)

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 human
experience, that Joseph and Mary fully intended to sleep together after their
wedding just like every other normal Jewish couple did back then.

Another point we should address is that in some versions of Christianity, it's
a sin to marry with no intent of producing children. That "sin" is based upon
a very early blessing in the book of Genesis.

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

Some folks regard that blessing as a commandment instead of
empowerment. Therefore, had Mary and Joseph made no attempt
whatsoever to produce children together, then they would've been guilty of
disobeying that which some folks regard 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 some people's thinking; God would have
been guilty of leading Jesus' parents into sin.

A serious ethnical point that should be noted is that Joseph and his wife
were both Abraham's posterity. God early-on blessed their ancestor 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.
_

Webers_Home · Jul 22, 2020

.
Isaiah 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
to him 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.

● Matt 1:23 . . The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and
they will call him Immanuel-- which means "God with us"

Immanuel isn't supposed to be taken as a name for God, nor taken to mean
that God is on-site in person. It actually speaks of providence; 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 like to the dead; and curing the sick, the lame, and the blind.
_

Joseph77 · Jul 22, 2020

footnote: since Mary had absolutely no infidelity, could the title of the thread be changed ?

Webers_Home · Jul 23, 2020

.
● Matt 1:18 . . When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before
they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Webster's defines "betroth" as to give in marriage and/or to promise to
marry. The very same Greek word for betroth is employed again to describe
their relationship on the road to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:5)

The Greek word translated "came together" means conjoin. I should think
that word needs no defining. (Well, maybe for underage children it might
need defining.)

Matthew 1:18-24 refers to Joseph and Jesus' mom as husband and wife. But
I have it on good authority that it was the custom in those days for couples
to be known as someone's husband and/or someone's wife during the
engagement period; which could be up to ten or twelve months prior to the
actual nuptials.

Matthew 1:24 is translated in some versions to say that Joseph took Mary
home. But a Greek word for home isn't actually in the manuscript. It just
says he took her; like this:

"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord
commanded him, and took her as his wife"

The Greek word for "took" has a variety of meanings, one of which is to
accept. In other words: Matt 1:24 just says that Joseph changed his mind about
breaking the engagement; it doesn't mean they started living together.
_

Webers_Home · Jul 24, 2020

.
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 that Christ is 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 exploit
the weakness in that area of their faith.
_

Webers_Home · Jul 25, 2020

.
● Luke 2:1-5 . . Now it came about in those days that a decree went out
from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This
was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all
were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city.

. . . And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to
Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the
house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was
engaged to him, and was with child.

Now, if so that Joseph and Jesus' mom were not yet fully married at that
point, then why was she traveling to Bethlehem with him; and why would a
woman in her condition want to go there anyway? It's 68 miles one-way as
the crow flies; and no doubt quite a few more miles than that via the ancient
road systems; which were not paved.

The answer is pretty simple. Mary's family was biologically related to David
just as much as Joseph's. In other words; she had to go to Bethlehem for
the census. So then what is usually depicted on Xmas cards as a lone couple
traveling to Bethlehem was far more likely a joint venture consisting of both
families: Joseph's and Mary's.

So; how do I know Mary was biologically related to David? Well; it would be
easy to see were the language and grammar of the opening remarks to
Jesus' genealogy-- per Luke's gospel --not so controversial. Since that route
has been compromised, we'll have to take another.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to
biological progeny; for example:

● Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny. The seed spoken of in Rom 1:1-3 is
biological progeny because David's seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his
physical human body.

Well; seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left
with Mary as the obvious trail of the bloodline to David; and if Mary, then of
course her dad too.

Now, there's a rumor going round that one's biological father is the source of
one's blood. But if we keep in mind that Eve was constructed of material
taken from Adam's body, then we are assured that any child that biologically
descends from Eve's body descends from Adam's body too; whether virgin
conceived or normally conceived makes no difference as all human flesh is
Adam's flesh regardless of race or gender; and if so, then all human blood
regardless of type-- whether A, B, AB, and O, and/or RhD --is Adam's blood
regardless of race or gender.

In other words: the only kind of human blood that could possibly be in Jesus'
body was Adam's blood because there just simply isn't any other human
blood to work with.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all
the face of the earth.

There's also an ancient prediction in the book of Genesis that biologically
relates Jesus to Eve.

● Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall
bruise him on the heel.

Well, if Jesus is Eve's seed, then he's certainly also Adam's; can't get out of that.
_

101G · Jul 25, 2020

Addressing the OP,

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

She was not sleeping around, but if so, and one want to push the issue, are you not suppose to stone both violators? Deuteronomy 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;"
Deuteronomy 22:24 "Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

#1. if the child is of the Holy Ghost, Then there is no Man to violate. or are you going to bring God to the city gates, and stone God? so she was not sleeping around.

#2. and to put, "EVIL away from among you" are we now calling the work of God EVIL? which was prophesied? meaning the word of God is EVIL too?

this topic should have never came forth. "Mary's Infidelity" was not the Word of God sufficient enough to believe when she said, "I know no man". and the angel who appeared unto here said this, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." that right there should have been the end of this STORY concering Mary's Infidelity.

PICJAG.

Webers_Home · Jul 25, 2020

.

101G said:
#1. if the child is of the Holy Ghost, Then there is no Man to violate. or are
you going to bring God to the city gates, and stone God?

The laws in the Bible regulating the use and abuse of sex pertain only to
humans and animals; none pertain to God.

Also: according to the Bible; where there is no law, there is no
transgression. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

Therefore; seeing as there is no law forbidding God to impregnate a
women that He's not married to, then if and/or whenever He chooses to
do so; for Him it's not a sin.
_

Joseph77 · Jul 25, 2020

101G said:
She was not sleeping around, but if so, and one want to push the issue, are you not suppose to stone both violators?

Again, the title should be changed.

There was no infidelity in Mary.

Webers_Home · Aug 1, 2020

.
FAQ: Why was Joseph left out of Jesus' conception? Why couldn't he have
been Jesus' biological father?

A: There's a few theories going around out there we might consider.

1• Men are filthy, unsanitary beasts. It's unthinkable that God would permit
them to contaminate, and thus violate, the womb that was to bear the Holy
Son of God.

» Women's bodies are made of material taken from a man's body (Gen
2:21-23). Mr.Job nailed it when he remarked: Who can bring a clean thing
out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You see; women aren't from Venus
after all; they're actually from Mars, same as men.

2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting
Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

» Well; whence did Eve get it? She was constructed of material taken from
Adam's body; but he tasted the fruit after she was born, so it was too late
for him to pass the fallen nature on to her via his genetics.

3• Joseph was left out of Jesus' conception in order to protect him from the
curse upon king Jeconiahs' royal posterity (Jer 22:29-30, Matt 1:11).

» That's a very popular theory among quite a few Protestants. However;
according to the language and grammar of the curse; its duration was
limited to an era when the land of Israel was divided into two kingdoms--
Judah in the south and Samaria in the north --which came to an end when
Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. When Christ takes the reins, the land
of Israel will be unified, i.e. it will no longer be Judah in the south and
Samaria in the north.

And besides, Jeconiah's royal line and the curse were inseparable. Had the
curse been established in perpetuity, then when Jesus was placed in
Jeconiah's royal line via his adoption to Joseph, he would've inherited the
curse right along with the line; virgin conceived or not would've made no
difference.

4• Another theory, which to me seems the best interpretation, is that it was
simply God's wishes that Jesus be not only Adam's progeny, but also His
own, viz: Son of Man and Son of God, in accord with the angel's
announcement. (Luke 1:32-35)
_

Webers_Home · Aug 2, 2020

.

Webers_Home said:
2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting
Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just
as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till
Adam tasted the fruit that she obtained a sense of decency. Prior to that,
had someone walked up and said; "Hey, put some clothes on; you're
indecent." she would've stared at them as if they were a man gone mad.

Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, give
her a sense of decency by means of procreation, nor by means of his body
parts that God used to construct her.

Since Eve didn't obtain a sense of decency from the chemistry of the fruit,
nor via procreation by means of Adam's body parts; then whence?

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My
money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with
the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph
2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death
the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me
how quickly it set in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via
a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the
world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb
or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)

In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological
father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called
fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's
biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent--
ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a
simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.
_

Webers_Home · Aug 5, 2020

.
● Luke 2:22-24 . . And when the days of her purification according to the
law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present
him to the Lord. (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) And to offer a sacrifice
according to that which is said in the law of the Lord: a pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.

The birds were for Jesus' mom (Lev 12:6-8). They were a "sin" offering; but
I don't think it would be wise to conclude from the wording of Leviticus that
Jesus' mom was a sinner because whether sinner or saint, God required it of
Moses' people; take for example Matt 13:13-15 where it's said:

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But
John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you
come to me? Jesus replied: Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to
fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented."

John's baptism was "unto repentance" (Matt 3:11). Well; surely Jesus
needed no repentance; he was a saint in the extreme sense of the word: i.e.
Jesus was 110% sinless (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22).
However, it was God's wishes that people in the Israel of that day submit to
John's baptism regardless whether they needed it-- not only because it was
God's wishes, but by doing so they publically acknowledged that repentance
is a good thing.

In other words: Jesus' mom brought those birds; not because she was a
sinner, but primarily because it was the right thing for Jewish mothers to do.

Now, Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). His mom brought
her birds thirty-three days later (Lev 12:3-4). Along with the birds, she was
supposed to bring a sum of money to redeem her boy (Num 18:15-16).

The redemption money was a buy-back; in other words: its purpose wasn't
to save Jesus' soul from Hell; rather, the money was a ransom; so to speak.
All the firstborn sons in Israel were God's private property to do with as He
pleased. In other words: the boys were all born into slavery to God. The
redemption money bought them their freedom.

It really wasn't all that much; just five shekels, after the shekel of the
sanctuary, which is something like twenty gerahs per shekel (Ezek 45:12)
roughly equivalent to 10 English pennyweights or 1/2 troy ounce of silver.
So five shekels would be about equal to 2½ troy ounces. The price of silver
as of Aug 05, 2020 was 27 US dollars per troy. So 2½ ounces troy would
total about 67.50 US dollars (57[/b].[/b]35 Euro).

I don't know the equivalent of $67.50 back in Mary's day but in our day,
silver prices fluctuate due to the activity of investors; back in her day silver's
value was no doubt strictly regulated by the government and thus probably
worth a whole lots less than it is now.
_

Search

Search

Mary's Infidelity

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Joseph77

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

101G

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Joseph77

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member

Similar threads