David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Dwell on what we just spoke about here = DWELL my Brother DWELL on it for it Speaks of Christ and the ChurchOk. Thank you.
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!
Dwell on what we just spoke about here = DWELL my Brother DWELL on it for it Speaks of Christ and the ChurchOk. Thank you.
The whole idea of being married was to have children, lots of them, which in Israel was an expectation.That ancient Jews got married but didn't have sex.
Most people don’t know that Jewish weddings were not ceremonial.That ancient Jews got married but didn't have sex.
Most people don’t know that Jewish weddings were not ceremonial.
The betrothal, as has been mentioned, was basically a contract between the bride’s parents and the groom.
It was a process that involved preparation. Once all the legalities were worked out, the groom would then build a house if he could afford to, but if not, then he would add a room to his parent’s house in preparation for his new bride.
When all was completed a date was set for the groom to go to his bride’s home and escort her to her new place. She would be adorned in her finest attire. Neighbors and friends would line the street and give the bride and groom their best wishes....
Only the rich could afford a wedding feast, like the one Jesus attended when he performed his first miracle.
Mary and Joseph were from modest backgrounds.....giving Jesus a balanced upbringing neither in poverty nor riches....but from a spiritually strong background.
At that stage, his brothers didn't believe in Him:Notice a complete absence of them at the cross - where were they when Mary stood there by herself with John.Why did John have to be asked by Jesus to take care of Mary .Where were her children.Wouldn't you have been there if you were his true brother or sister.They were completely absent from that scene.Why did Jesus ask John to take care of her if she had so many children shouldn't he of asked his brothers and sisters first?Unless you want to claim he had a horrible family.I know I would of been there if I was his brother and would of taken care of her he would not of had to ask John it would be a given.I would of made sure they were all there with me but that's not what happened it fell on John. Not one of them were there to take care of her because they were not his biological siblings.
Yes, thank you! There is also zero information in the word to even imply that Joseph was "much older" than Mary and, it just seems to be something the CC has tossed into the mix to bolster the perpetual virginity of Mary.There is nothing in the testament that indicates Joseph was married prior to betrothal to Mary.
He was significantly older. Not a problem at the time, but the translation is. His "flesh" was already corrupted: his fat and his skin were no longer young. He wasn't old man though.Yes, thank you! There is also zero information in the word to even imply that Joseph was "much older" than Mary and, it just seems to be something the CC has tossed into the mix to bolster the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Thank you, can you show me where this is stated in scripture, or historical documents that are not CC?He was significantly older. Not a problem at the time, but the translation is. His "flesh" was already corrupted: his fat and his skin were no longer young. He wasn't old man though.
I guess there is nothing in scripture that words Joseph as old, lest you like the ProtoGospel of James like BreadofLife. Sorry. Joseph must have been young.Thank you, can you show me where this is stated in scripture, or historical documents that are not CC?
Yes, she was "overshadowed by The Holy Spirit" and remained pure and undefiled by man until she gave a "virgins" birth to Jesus. IOW, "she knew not a man" in that sense.Are you saying that Mary was pregnant before they were married?
I just do not think we can really know either way. Thank you!I guess there is nothing in scripture that words Joseph as old, lest you like the ProtoGospel of James like BreadofLife. Sorry. Joseph must have been young.
I like that "pope" Peter had a wife .@David Lamb
7:5 οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν
Since some brothers his were not trusting [God] into him.
Interesting proof. I personally like how "pope" Peter had a son, the gospel author Marcus.

Actually, I don't think so. His "brothers" were from the same grandmother. Unless somebody did sloppy work on Hebrew cognate. This is very possible. Abel and Cain were brothers, but supposedly Hebrew the cognate can be used of cousins. It has either to be disproved or accepted.After Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary did tha wild thang and had some kids the conventional way View attachment 73988
Actually, I don't think so.
You have no evidence that Jesus wasn't an only child. If you can prove adelphos is only about biological brothers, then you would have a point. I think Mary was shocked when she went through labor and made it the last time. There is still true love, because she didn't set out to be pregnant with Jesus.God's Word says Jesus has siblings so Joseph and Mary did the wild thang.
You have no evidence saying they obtained children any other way.
Sorry, but where in the bible are we told that Joseph's flesh was already corrupted: his fat and his skin were no longer young?He was significantly older. Not a problem at the time, but the translation is. His "flesh" was already corrupted: his fat and his skin were no longer young. He wasn't old man though.
I have already admitted that this is not the case. But the idiom, " 'flesh' see corruption" means that, and Jesus was that young. So I concluded Joseph was not an old man. The Romans love that tradition.Sorry, but where in the bible are we told that Joseph's flesh was already corrupted: his fat and his skin were no longer young?