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!
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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 .
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
Well-Known Member
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
Member
Your reply doesn’t actually address the points I raised. Your quotation of Luke 1:35 actually reinforces the point I’m making. Luke describes a supernatural conception brought about by the Holy Spirit, not a sexual act and not a natural conception involving a man. That is precisely what Matthew states as well in 1:18 and 1:20. A conception “of the Holy Spirit” is, by definition, a virginal conception.
So the question remains: how can the statement “Scripture does not imply a virgin birth” be compatible with your affirmation that Mary’s conception was “of the Holy Spirit”? Those two claims still do not align, and quoting Luke 1:35 only strengthens the textual evidence for the virgin birth rather than resolving the contradiction.
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.
Last edited:
Moonwood
Member
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.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I proved what the word means and in this case in the context of what happened. When looking for biblical proof that is the very best. So again.....
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 all aspects of the word apply----legitimate child....one and only.....one of kind----unique. Perfect word for Yahweh siring His Son. And the Son of God is a key point....a foundational belief. If it is anything but from Yahweh's seed Yeshua is a creation, not the Son of God. In which case He did not need Miriam He could have created Him on a mountain top.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
No Luke 1:35 proves they were both involved.
And scripture does not describe Yeshua as the Son of the Holy Spirit.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Post 215
Again and again.....the best proof is what the word means and then the context it was used and the results.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The supporting scriptures do not indicate that Miriam became a mass murderer......
So we might want to consider the norm by Law and tradition that Miriam was a wife to Joseph to the fullest extent after Yeshua was born which would mean she probably had children.
Moonwood
Member
You’re welcome to raise the question of whether Mary was a good wife in another thread, but that’s simply not what Matthew 1:25 is talking about, nor is it what you originally claimed. You cited Matthew 1:25 as evidence that Joseph and Mary later had sexual relations—“Looks pretty clear to me.” My response addressed that claim directly by explaining why heos does not imply a change afterward and why Matthew’s narrative is focused on the virginal conception, not on their later marital life.
If you now want to switch topics and evaluate Mary’s quality as a wife, that’s a separate discussion entirely. It still doesn’t supply any evidence for your original point about Matthew 1:25, and it doesn’t change the fact that the verse itself makes no statement—positive or negative—about post‑birth relations. Matthew is not assessing Mary’s submission, affection, or marital behavior; he is securing the theological claim that Jesus’ conception was divine.
So your comment about Mary being a “bad wife” doesn’t respond to the linguistic or exegetical argument I made. It simply shifts to a different subject. If you want to discuss Mary’s virtue as a wife, we can do that elsewhere, but it won’t turn Matthew 1:25 into a statement about what happened after Jesus’ birth.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
Your opinion on Matthew 1:25 are just excuses to protect the perpetual virginity dogma. The text is very clear to me
Moonwood
Member
Your response still doesn’t resolve the contradiction I pointed out. Luke 1:35 does not show “both were involved”; it explicitly describes a conception brought about by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High, not a sexual act and not a natural conception involving a man. That is why both Matthew 1:18 and 1:20 state that the child was conceived “of the Holy Spirit.” A conception brought about by the Holy Spirit is, by definition, not the result of human intercourse, and quoting Luke only strengthens the textual evidence for a virginal conception rather than explaining how your claim that “Scripture does not imply a virgin birth” can stand alongside your affirmation that Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit.
Your comments on monogenes also do not address the point. The lexical definitions you quoted—“only one of its kind,” “unique,” “only legitimate child”—do not mean “sexually generated,” and you still have not produced a single instance where the New Testament uses monogenes to describe sexual reproduction. Matthew explicitly denies sexual conception in Jesus’ case, and appealing to “seed” language that Scripture never uses does not change the Greek or Matthew’s narrative.
Repeating “cherry picking” does not engage Matthew’s own hermeneutics in 1:22, where he explicitly identifies Isaiah 7 as finding its fulfillment in Christ according to standard Second‑Temple typology. Isaiah 7 has an immediate historical context involving Ahaz, but Matthew is reading it the way Jewish interpreters of his period regularly did—seeing an initial historical meaning and a later, fuller realization.
Likewise, quoting Isaiah 8:3 does not establish that the prophetess is the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14; the text never identifies them, and the contexts are different. The meaning of ‘almah is not determined by your assertion but by Hebrew usage and by the Septuagint translators—long before Christianity—who rendered ‘almah as parthenos, “virgin.”
Finally, your reply about heos does not address the linguistic point at all. The phrasing “he did not know Her until She had borne a Son” corresponds directly to the Greek syntax of heos, which marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s claim that 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” does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Matthew’s concern is the divine origin of Jesus and Mary’s virginity at His birth, not later family life. None of your replies have addressed these textual points.
Moonwood
Member
You’re now framing this as a disagreement over “perpetual virginity,” but that’s not actually what began the conversation. You originally cited Matthew 1:25 and said, “Looks pretty clear to me,” as evidence that Joseph and Mary later had sexual relations. My response addressed that specific claim by explaining why heos does not imply a change afterward and why Matthew’s narrative is focused entirely on the virginal conception, not on their later marital life. That’s an exegetical point, not a doctrinal one.
If you want to argue that Matthew 1:25 teaches post‑birth intercourse, you still need to show that from the text itself—Greek usage, narrative context, authorial intent. Simply asserting that the verse is “clear” or accusing me of defending a dogma doesn’t engage the linguistic or contextual evidence I presented. The meaning of heos is determined by how the term functions in Scripture and Koine Greek, not by what either of us believes about Mary’s later life.
If you’d prefer to shift the discussion to whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin, that’s a different topic entirely. It doesn’t supply any textual evidence for your original claim, and it doesn’t change the fact that Matthew 1:25 makes no statement—positive or negative—about post‑birth relations. Matthew’s concern in this passage is the divine origin of Jesus, not Mary’s marital conduct. So moving from the semantics of heos to a doctrinal question about perpetual virginity is a change of subject, not a response to the exegetical point I raised.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. I thought you were claiming that Mary remained a virgin?
So then we are in agreement.
Mary did not remain a virgin.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
God bless
Similar threads
