So Joseph married Mary but didn’t have sex?

[Grailhunter]

finally . MY goodness you must have examined the all inclusive ecuemincal interfaith .
AND NOT ONLY that , F RIEND THEY LIED TO EVERY KNOWN relgoin to man and to christendom .
FLAT OUT LIED and flat out DENIED the very GOSPEL OF GOD ALL MIGHTY which is the gospel of JESUS CHRIST .
Oh i suppose a man can be hopeful in hoping you finally seen through this interfaith web . A man can hope .
And a man can pray that all get the heck out of it now .

Nope.....a life of formal education.

 

[amigo de christo]

3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz Isaiah 8:3 NIV

3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; Isaiah 8:3 NASB

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; Isaiah 8:3

How many ways do you want it.

sadly many have ran to the wrong prophetess who by means of her all inclusive father has bore
that which is of anti christ and its intefaith .
And oh yeah they preach MANY WAYS under cliam its all the same way TO GOD .
That harlot has birthed a ecumeincal love song and has sold it to the masses of every denonimation known to man
as well as to the false religoins . And her song of love is a song of death twice told .
SO do understand WHY i dont run to that song .
wanna know what i seem to notice .
That all it takes in this generation is one to rise up and say LOVE a lot
and all of a sudden THEY JUST BELEIVE TEH MAN to be of GOD .
But if a man stands up with a bible and reads those words
THEIR accusation is hater . KINDA ODD DONT YA THINK .
SEEING IT WAS GOD WHO DID INSPIRE such words . Kinda makes one think
GOD IS ON TRIAL , HIS WORDS are now being labled has hate in favor of a harlots love
and those who still cling to CHRIST and thus stay in that bible are seen as haters .
ONLY there is no kinda to it . THEY HAVE by means of a harlots love
DECLARED ALL OUT WAR upon the HOLY GOD , THE HOLY CHRIST of that BIBLE
and will soon declare war against the saints who did not conform to this harlots all inclusive love song .
Just a friendly reminder . Just a dire reminder , JUST a dire necessary warning and reminder .
GET them out of anything ecumeincal and far and wide from anything connected to this global peace plan of interfaith .
AND RIGHT NOW .

 

[amigo de christo]

Nope.....a life of formal education.

well . well lets see where that life of formal education has led you .
OOPSY , RIGHT INTO THE ALL INCLUSIVE ECUMEINCAL INTEFAITH PLAN FOR PEACE .
Which i know , and know i do without a doubt , TOBE of anti christ .
SO TELL me my well educated , highly educated of wise wise wise greek scholars ,
WHY ON EARTH WOULD I WANT TO SIT UNDER and learn FROM THAT . WHEN it has led many of you all
RIGHT INTO THE VERY SNARE of he who has always desired to be as GOD and its own peace plan .
CAUSE that house is coming DOWN on JESUS DAY . SO perhaps less formal education
and a whole lot more of BIBLE READING is THE KEY .

 

[Grailhunter]

Well scripture tells women to submit to their husbands. So if Mary refused to love her husband and would not allow him to love her then that would make her a bad wife

Right....sort of.
You are quoting the wrong scriptures....During Christ's ministry they were still in the Old Covenant. Mosaic Law......accordingly by Mosaic Law Miriam was owned and did not have a choice as to have sex or not. For her to refuse would be a sin. Certainly no reason to assume that Miriam and Joseph did not make love and she had children, both male and female.

 

[amigo de christo]

Right....sort of.
You are quoting the wrong scriptures....During Christ's ministry they were still in the Old Covenant. Mosaic Law......accordingly by Mosaic Law Miriam was owned and did not have a choice as to have sex or not. For her to refuse would be a sin. Certainly no reason to assume that Miriam and Joseph did not make love and she had children, both male and female.

and people wonder why on earth i dont sit under formally educated scholars .
In case you all might or might not be wondering
YOU ALL DO REALIZE they are molding and conforming a religion
to pander to all religoins and to do so in a way
that will be seated under a harlot . Lots of people these days might be tempted
to perhaps call you a catholic . Not me .
Wanna know why , cause it dont seem to matter what denomaintion one is in
ITS BEING infiltrated by such a place . so NO WONDER th ey are headed more and more into SOME of its doctrines .
IF all of a sudden every denomination in mainstream were to stop calling itself baptist , or mormon , or jw ,
or lutheran or etc
YOU WOULD marvel at how hard to would be TO EVEN TELL the difference amongst them .
At most it only would be through perhaps a few rituals . OTHER THAN THAT they all buying into the same lie too .
Folks holler , OH NO communism has taken over the left
BUT cannot see IT INFILTRATED all of the religoins too . Break down aboslute truth by turning it into a liquid
THEN reforming the liquid into an absolute . OOPSY .
SURELY ya didint think GOD was behind this merger . OH wait you did . BUT OH NO HE AINT .
see they removed FUDAMENTAL TRUTH in order to merge the chrisetain WITH teh false relgoins as well .
AND ANY GUESSES on what the agenda is . THE ONE WORLD AGENDA . the very agenda ,
EVEN THE so called TRUMP of GOD claims to be so dead set again st
AND YET DOES ITS ECUEINCAL INTEFIATH . ITS VERY PLAN TO MERGE THEM ALL . oopsy . many be doopsy .

 

[amigo de christo]

and what IS the fear of the LORD . To depart from evil and not rather to call evil good and good evil .
Just a friendly reminder to us all
that within this generation we have us a massive lack of discernment .
For when the words LOVE and GOD IS LOVE are mentioned , ALL OF A SUDDEN EYES GLAZE OVER
as if the one who said them MUST AUTOMATICALLY BE OF GOD . WHEN upon examination, i have seen
MANY of them that are NOT and only use the words like LOVE , like tolerance , to only
remove TRUTH and allow evil the support it needs TO TAKE over . AND IT DOES take over .
And why does evil take over . cause under the so called loving idea that its LOVING to not JUDGE , aka correct and expose sins ,
The true men are cast out as haters and the leaven just fills it up . WHEN o when is this generation gonna learn
That the devil himself can use such words , even saying GOD is love , and yet Be decieving all within such chambers .

 

[Grailhunter]

and people wonder why on earth i dont sit under formally educated scholars .
In case you all might or might not be wondering
YOU ALL DO REALIZE they are molding and conforming a religion
to pander to all religoins and to do so in a way
that will be seated under a harlot . Lots of people these days might be tempted
to perhaps call you a catholic . Not me .
Wanna know why , cause it dont seem to matter what denomaintion one is in
ITS BEING infiltrated by such a place . so NO WONDER th ey are headed more and more into SOME of its doctrines .
IF all of a sudden every denomination in mainstream were to stop calling itself baptist , or mormon , or jw ,
or lutheran or etc
YOU WOULD marvel at how hard to would be TO EVEN TELL the difference amongst them .
At most it only would be through perhaps a few rituals . OTHER THAN THAT they all buying into the same lie too .
Folks holler , OH NO communism has taken over the left
BUT cannot see IT INFILTRATED all of the religoins too . Break down aboslute truth by turning it into a liquid
THEN reforming the liquid into an absolute . OOPSY .
SURELY ya didint think GOD was behind this merger . OH wait you did . BUT OH NO HE AINT .
see they removed FUDAMENTAL TRUTH in order to merge the chrisetain WITH teh false relgoins as well .
AND ANY GUESSES on what the agenda is . THE ONE WORLD AGENDA . the very agenda ,
EVEN THE so called TRUMP of GOD claims to be so dead set again st
AND YET DOES ITS ECUEINCAL INTEFIATH . ITS VERY PLAN TO MERGE THEM ALL . oopsy . many be doopsy .

LOL
One of the reasons that there are 30,000 denominations is that they were started by people that were uneducated on the scriptures, the languages, the culture, and the history. The Bible calls it the blind leading the blind.

 

[Moonwood]

You need to look a little deeper into the Greek...
Monogenes (μονογενής) has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind".[1] Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only".[2] Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child.[3] Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, ὁ μονογενής (ho monogenēs) means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child"

In this case for sure it is a child.....a woman was impregnated and the only Son of Yahweh was delivered by Miriam.

The Jehovah's Witnesses take words and change the meaning or insert them out of context. Save your effort I have a college education in the biblical languages.

What could they do? tell them that there is no prophecies that fit! But definitely cherry picking. Nothing in the story about a Messiah or a Messiah that is crucified. Nothing about saving their souls.

3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz Isaiah 8:3 NIV

3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; Isaiah 8:3 NASB

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; Isaiah 8:3

How many ways do you want it.

No contest on Joseph holding off making love to Miriam until after Yeshua was born.

Your reply doesn’t actually address the points I raised. You quoted standard lexical definitions of monogenes, but none of the definitions you listed mean “sexually generated,” and you didn’t provide a single example where the New Testament uses monogenes to describe sexual reproduction. Matthew explicitly denies sexual conception in Jesus’ case: “Before they came together She was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18) and “that which is conceived in Her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Appealing to credentials doesn’t change the Greek or Matthew’s narrative.

Your comments on Isaiah 7 also don’t engage the argument. Isaiah 7 is a historical episode involving Ahaz, but Matthew explicitly says the prophecy finds its fulfillment in Christ: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” (Matthew 1:22). That is standard Second‑Temple Jewish typology—an immediate historical meaning and a later, fuller realization. Simply repeating “cherry picking” doesn’t address Matthew’s own hermeneutics.

Quoting Isaiah 8:3 three times doesn’t establish that the prophetess is the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah’s wife is called “the prophetess” in 8:3, and the text never identifies her with the ‘almah. These are two different women in two different contexts. Nothing in Isaiah 7 says the sign‑child is Maher‑shalal‑hash‑baz, and nothing in Isaiah 8 says the prophetess is the ‘almah. And ‘almah does not mean “a woman who has had sex but not yet had a baby.” Hebrew has words for a woman who has had intercourse (ishah) and for a woman who has given birth (yōledet). The Septuagint translators—long before Christianity—rendered ‘almah as parthenos, which unambiguously means “virgin.” Matthew follows that translation.

Finally, you conceded the linguistic point about heos in Matthew 1:25. The phrasing "he did not know Her until She had borne a Son" corresponds directly to the Greek syntax of heos. In Koine Greek, heos marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s theological claim—Joseph had no role in the conception. It does not imply a change afterward, just as “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:23) does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Matthew’s concern is the divine origin of Jesus and the virginity of Mary at His birth.

 

[Moonwood]

Well scripture tells women to submit to their husbands. So if Mary refused to love her husband and would not allow him to love her then that would make her a bad wife

Your comment about marital submission doesn’t actually address the textual question in Matthew 1:25. Matthew is not evaluating Mary’s character as a wife, nor discussing Joseph’s marital rights. He is explaining the circumstances of Jesus’ conception and birth, and he uses heos simply to mark the boundary that Joseph had no sexual involvement prior to the birth—so that the virginal conception he has just narrated remains theologically uncontested. Later household instructions given to Christian couples decades afterward cannot be imported back into Matthew’s narrative to infer what happened in Joseph and Mary’s private life. Exegesis has to follow the author’s purpose, and Matthew’s purpose in this passage is singular: to establish the divine origin of Jesus, not to comment on Mary’s marital behavior or to imply anything about post‑birth relations.