The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective

[Johann]

When it says Joseph took her as his wife- that was the act. No bones about it.

She was a virgin. Had never been with a man. Then Joseph takes her as his wife and Gos is right there in this act of holy matrimony where the holy one is conceived with the Holy Spirit hovering over them—- for Mary and Joseph it really was Immanuel— God with us in the wedding booth. And she is seeded by Joseph and becomes his wife. He ‘takes her’ as his wife and he trusts and she trusts that the words of the Angel were true, that this one act would bring forth the child who would one day be the anointed one. And with this confidence they abstain from their right to marital relations until after Jesus is born.

You are one heck of a confused individual--butchering the holy text and the problem is--many here are going to believe you--not even the Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox and Messianic's believe as you do.

This is the first time I'm beginning to understand what you are proposing--and you are in error. No offense.
J.

 

[Mr E]

You are one heck of a confused individual--butchering the holy text and the problem is--many here are going to believe you--not even the Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox and Messianic's believe as you do.

This is the first time I'm beginning to understand what you are proposing--and you are in error. No offense.
J.

None taken.

Before the cohabited means exactly what it says. It means before they shared a house.

But before they shared a house- he took her as his wife and that of course means that they shared the marriage bed— where she conceived.

 

[Johann]

None taken.

Before the cohabited means exactly what it says. It means before they shared a house.

But before they shared a house- he took her as his wife and that of course means that they shared the marriage bed— where she conceived.

You don't quote scriptures, this is your opinion @Mr E--no rebuke--

The huledet (birth) of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach was as follows. When Moshiach’s Em, Miryam, had been given in erusin to Yosef [ben Dovid], but before they came together, she was found with child through the Ruach Hakodesh


He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no manner of society with her alone, beyond the canonical limits of discourse, that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found with child.

[She was found with child.] Namely, after the space of three months from her conception, when she was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth. See Luk_1:56; and compare Gen_38:24.

The masters of the traditions assign this space to discover a thing of that nature. "A woman (say they) who is either put away from her husband, or become a widow, neither marrieth, nor is espoused, but after ninety days: namely, that it may be known, whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made between the offspring of the first husband and of the second. In like manner, a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children begotten in holiness," (that is, within the true religion; see 1Co_7:14) "And children begotten out of holiness."

Of the Holy Ghost.—The notion of begetting is completely excluded by that of the Holy Ghost. The secret influence of the Spirit is more minutely described in Luk_1:35.

she was found with child of the Holy Ghost) There can be no doubt but that Mary disclosed to Joseph (perhaps when he proposed to consummate their marriage) the sacred pregnancy, which she had concealed from every one else.—ἘΚ, of) The expression ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου (of the Holy Spirit) occurs again at Mat_1:20. See, also, Joh_3:6.

Here is what you miss brother--

Luk 1:35 And in reply, the malach said to her, The Ruach Hakodesh will come upon you and the gevurah of HaElyon will overshadow you. Therefore, also, the one being born will be called HaKadosh (The Holy One), Ben HaElohim.

And the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. By "the power of the Highest" is not meant the Lord Jesus Christ, who is sometimes called the power of God; but rather the Holy Ghost, as before, who is styled the finger of God, and power from on high, Luk_11:20 unless it should be thought that the perfection of divine power common to all the three persons is intended: and so points out the means by which the wondrous thing should be performed, even by the power of God; and which should not only be employed in forming the human nature of Christ, but in protecting the virgin from any suspicion and charge of sin, and defending her innocence and virtue, by moving upon Joseph to take her to wife. In the word, "overshadow", some think there is an allusion to the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, in Gen_1:2 when, מרחפת, he brooded upon them, as the word may be rendered; and which is the sense of it, according to the Jewish writers (y) as a hen, or any other bird broods on its eggs to exclude its young: and others have thought the allusion may be to הופת חתנים,

(z), "the nuptial covering": which was a veil, or canopy, like a tent, supported on four staves, under which the bridegroom and bride were betrothed; or, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, it is a modest phrase alluding to the conjugal embraces, signified by a man's spreading the skirt of his garment over the woman, which Ruth desired of Boaz, Rth_3:9 though the Jewish writers say (a), that phrase is לשון נישואין expressive of the act of marriage, or taking to wife. The phrase of being מטללין ברוח נבואה "overshadowed", or "covered with the spirit of prophecy", as the virgin also was, is used by the Targumist, on 1Ch_2:55.

@Mr E --I would submit to you that Joseph had nothing to do with the virgin birth of Mary--it is a mystery--if, as you say, Joseph had yada/known her than why was he suspicious of Mary's pregnancy?

I'm not trying to sound intellectual, but go with what stands written--and I urge you to listen

Here it is--

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Joseph is excluded in this narrative--THIS is why the Orthodox Jews have a problem in the genealogy of Yeshua.

You are an intelligent man and urge you to reconsider your views and let the Scriptures answer your question/s.

Shalom to you and family
J.

 

[Mr E]

You don't quote scriptures, this is your opinion @Mr E--no rebuke--

I quoted the entire passage-- both of them. And explained them in detail.

Your beliefs are based on total supposition, speculation, and religious dogma-- and dependent upon rejection of biological fact.

You are welcome to cling to them. I put no burden of belief on you--- You can bury your head and say you don't believe what I've presented to you if you wish--

You can say- "I don't believe it!" -but you can never stand before Him and say-- "No one told me."

 

[Mr E]

Question: what is a "sign"? what I mean is for example the stars fall from the heaven and it will be dark. is this a sign?
She will call his name "Immanuel".

At the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, He will eat curds and Honey.

Wrapping this thread up with just a few final thoughts on the sign that Joseph was given.

An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.”

This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Look! The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will name him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”

Except he wasn't given a sign. Neither was Mary. They just believed what the angel of the Lord said to them. Signs are given for the unbelieving. The believing have no need of them. They were never told to name the child Emmanuel, they were told to name him Jesus, and they did as they were told. They obeyed.

Mary's song was simple-- The angel said you are going to conceive and have a son who is going to be set apart. In response-

Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.”

Joseph likewise was obedient to the angel of the Lord and did just what he was told to do-- When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife.

There was no sign given them. The phrase- 'This all happened so that.....' was added not because the angel proclaimed it a sign, but so that we would make the association. This, was like that. And as in the story told in Isaiah-- there was no miraculous birth absent of a father involved-- no "virgin" birth without anyone having sex, rather the 'young woman' conceived the way all women conceive-- the natural understanding.

“Ask for a confirming sign from the LORD your God. You can even ask for something miraculous.”

But he wouldn't. He didn't want to ask for a miraculous sign. So he was given quite an ordinary one.

But Ahaz responded, “I don’t want to ask; I don’t want to put the LORD to a test.”

--For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

I then approached the prophetess for marital relations; she conceived and gave birth to a son.

The writer in Matthew makes the association. His words say-- go look at the story in Isaiah. This is just like that.


Of course it's so much easier to repeat the narrative we've been spoon-fed. To perpetuate the myth. These two brief mentions in but two gospels become the foundation for our faith? How flimsy. How feeble. How fatal. It separates him from us in a way that nothing else could. If he's not like us, then he's no example for us. The 'fatherless virgin birth' narrative doesn't even get a mention in the other two gospel accounts. A foundation that doesn't get included in the blueprint of our faith? Neither does Paul think it's worth mentioning-- not anywhere. Read the passages without your preconceived notions and apply a little critical thinking. Set aside your beliefs, teachings and notions and use a little common sense.

Apart from Joseph being the actual father the account in Matthew becomes completely unnecessary and superfluous. Of course, it's not.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Wrapping this thread up with just a few final thoughts on the sign that Joseph was given.

An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.”

This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Look! The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will name him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”

Except he wasn't given a sign. Neither was Mary. They just believed what the angel of the Lord said to them. Signs are given for the unbelieving. The believing have no need of them. They were never told to name the child Emmanuel, they were told to name him Jesus, and they did as they were told. They obeyed.

Mary's song was simple-- The angel said you are going to conceive and have a son who is going to be set apart. In response-

Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.”

Joseph likewise was obedient to the angel of the Lord and did just what he was told to do-- When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife.

There was no sign given them. The phrase- 'This all happened so that.....' was added not because the angel proclaimed it a sign, but so that we would make the association. This, was like that. And as in the story told in Isaiah-- there was no miraculous birth absent of a father involved-- no "virgin" birth without anyone having sex, rather the 'young woman' conceived the way all women conceive-- the natural understanding.

“Ask for a confirming sign from the LORD your God. You can even ask for something miraculous.”

But he wouldn't. He didn't want to ask for a miraculous sign. So he was given quite an ordinary one.

But Ahaz responded, “I don’t want to ask; I don’t want to put the LORD to a test.”

--For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

I then approached the prophetess for marital relations; she conceived and gave birth to a son.

The writer in Matthew makes the association. His words say-- go look at the story in Isaiah. This is just like that.


Of course it's so much easier to repeat the narrative we've been spoon-fed. To perpetuate the myth. These two brief mentions in but two gospels become the foundation for our faith? How flimsy. How feeble. How fatal. It separates him from us in a way that nothing else could. If he's not like us, then he's no example for us. The 'fatherless virgin birth' narrative doesn't even get a mention in the other two gospel accounts. A foundation that doesn't get included in the blueprint of our faith? Neither does Paul think it's worth mentioning-- not anywhere. Read the passages without your preconceived notions and apply a little critical thinking. Set aside your beliefs, teachings and notions and use a little common sense.

Apart from Joseph being the actual father the account in Matthew becomes completely unnecessary and superfluous. Of course, it's not.

I do try to use critical thinking. I still am not grasping why Joseph had concern enough to consider putting Mary away privately. If consummation was the next and final step to complete the Union. For example a husband knowing that is the next step, but considering to put his wife away privately…until God says go ahead and take her as your wife. There is something out of place there (Imo), that still causes me to question what made Joseph consider putting her away? For me, that hasn’t been answered yet.

We talk about logical. For me Adam is not all that logical either. Where did sperm and an egg come from. Dirt?

 

[marks]

I do try to use critical thinking. I still am not grasping why Joseph had concern enough to consider putting Mary away privately. If consummation was the next and final step to complete the Union. For example a husband knowing that is the next step, but considering to put his wife away privately…until God says go ahead and take her as your wife. There is something out of place there (Imo), that still causes me to question what made Joseph consider putting her away? For me, that hasn’t been answered yet.

That's a really good point!

If Joseph were Jesus' biological father, why would he consider divorcing Mary for "unfaithfulness"?

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

I do try to use critical thinking. I still am not grasping why Joseph had concern enough to consider putting Mary away privately. If consummation was the next and final step to complete the Union. For example a husband knowing that is the next step, but considering to put his wife away privately…until God says go ahead and take her as your wife. There is something out of place there (Imo), that still causes me to question what made Joseph consider putting her away? For me, that hasn’t been answered yet.

We talk about logical. For me Adam is not all that logical either. Where did sperm and an egg come from. Dirt?

He is shown in spirit (in a dream) that his wife to be is pregnant. In that same dream he thinks to put her away privately. The whole thing is troubling to him (because it’s a dream) -and while he’s still thinking about all of it (contemplating it) he has another dream where an Angel tells him not to be afraid -and to go ahead and take her as his wife. -Which is exactly what he does.

 

[Waiting on him]

He is shown in spirit (in a dream) that his wife to be is pregnant. In that same dream he thinks to put her away privately. The whole thing is troubling to him (because it’s a dream) -and while he’s still thinking about all of it (contemplating it) he has another dream where an Angel tells him not to be afraid -and to go ahead and take her as his wife. -Which is exactly what he does.

No one to date has reconciled how it is he took her?

 

[Waiting on him]

Matthew 1:24 KJV
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

 

[Mr E]

Matthew 1:24 KJV
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

I think that’s been covered…. (uncovered).

Think of the alternative case. -Joseph being a righteous man (law-abiding) had he actually found her to be pregnant would not assume it was through the Holy Spirit that she came to be that way. Neither would he have had a choice regarding putting her aside and not marrying her. The law would dictate what must be done.

You won’t read anywhere that Mary or Joseph faced any consequences or even a sideways glance from anyone including at the temple for any sort of unplanned pregnancy. Its fantasy turned into doctrine turned into church dogma with more fabricated doctrine and dogma on top. Someone proposed something they supposed to be true- and for the most part— it’s stuck.

Insisting something over and over won’t make it true if it never was.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrapping this thread up with just a few final thoughts on the sign that Joseph was given.

An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.”

This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Look! The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will name him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.”

Except he wasn't given a sign. Neither was Mary. They just believed what the angel of the Lord said to them. Signs are given for the unbelieving. The believing have no need of them. They were never told to name the child Emmanuel, they were told to name him Jesus, and they did as they were told. They obeyed.

Mary's song was simple-- The angel said you are going to conceive and have a son who is going to be set apart. In response-

Mary said, “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.”

Joseph likewise was obedient to the angel of the Lord and did just what he was told to do-- When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife.

There was no sign given them. The phrase- 'This all happened so that.....' was added not because the angel proclaimed it a sign, but so that we would make the association. This, was like that. And as in the story told in Isaiah-- there was no miraculous birth absent of a father involved-- no "virgin" birth without anyone having sex, rather the 'young woman' conceived the way all women conceive-- the natural understanding.

“Ask for a confirming sign from the LORD your God. You can even ask for something miraculous.”

But he wouldn't. He didn't want to ask for a miraculous sign. So he was given quite an ordinary one.

But Ahaz responded, “I don’t want to ask; I don’t want to put the LORD to a test.”

--For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

I then approached the prophetess for marital relations; she conceived and gave birth to a son.

The writer in Matthew makes the association. His words say-- go look at the story in Isaiah. This is just like that.


Of course it's so much easier to repeat the narrative we've been spoon-fed. To perpetuate the myth. These two brief mentions in but two gospels become the foundation for our faith? How flimsy. How feeble. How fatal. It separates him from us in a way that nothing else could. If he's not like us, then he's no example for us. The 'fatherless virgin birth' narrative doesn't even get a mention in the other two gospel accounts. A foundation that doesn't get included in the blueprint of our faith? Neither does Paul think it's worth mentioning-- not anywhere. Read the passages without your preconceived notions and apply a little critical thinking. Set aside your beliefs, teachings and notions and use a little common sense.

Apart from Joseph being the actual father the account in Matthew becomes completely unnecessary and superfluous. Of course, it's not.

Sooooo, do you have a problem with the virgin-birth because there is "insufficient" evidence for it?

 

[Waiting on him]

I think that’s been covered…. (uncovered).

Think of the alternative case. -Joseph being a righteous man (law-abiding) had he actually found her to be pregnant would not assume it was through the Holy Spirit that she came to be that way. Neither would he have had a choice regarding putting her aside and not marrying her. The law would dictate what must be done.

You won’t read anywhere that Mary or Joseph faced any consequences or even a sideways glance from anyone including at the temple for any sort of unplanned pregnancy. Its fantasy turned into doctrine turned into church dogma with more fabricated doctrine and dogma on top. Someone proposed something they supposed to be true- and for the most part— it’s stuck.

Insisting something over and over won’t make it true if it never was.

I think that’s been covered…. (uncovered).

Think of the alternative case. -Joseph being a righteous man (law-abiding) had he actually found her to be pregnant would not assume it was through the Holy Spirit that she came to be that way. Neither would he have had a choice regarding putting her aside and not marrying her. The law would dictate what must be done.

You won’t read anywhere that Mary or Joseph faced any consequences or even a sideways glance from anyone including at the temple for any sort of unplanned pregnancy. Its fantasy turned into doctrine turned into church dogma with more fabricated doctrine and dogma on top. Someone proposed something they supposed to be true- and for the most part— it’s stuck.

Insisting something over and over won’t make it true if it never was.

If Herod would have thought for one second that Joseph wasn’t the baby daddy, he’d have never murdered all those children. In Herods eyes Jesus being the son of David through the bloodline would rightly be Christ/King anointed of God. This is why Joseph’s genealogy is given. If he wasn’t in fact the father there would be no need for it.

The further implication is, if in fact he was the biological father, then billions have worshipped a god man for millinia, having been told by this man to worship God!

 

[Mr E]

Sooooo, do you have a problem with the virgin-birth because there is "insufficient" evidence for it?

Think that through friend.

By nature, there could be no evidence of it.

Your teen daughter comes home from school tonight and tells you she is pregnant. She also insists she has never had sex. What evidence could she present to validate her story?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Think that through friend.

By nature, there could be no evidence of it.

Correct - but there is sufficient Scriptural evidence (Matt. 1:18-25, Luke 1:31-35).

 

[Mr E]

Correct - but there is sufficient Scriptural evidence (Matt. 1:18-25, Luke 1:31-35).

Ah…. Because “so the story goes” — that’s a pretty low bar.

I take it you haven’t actually read the thread. I don’t like long threads either. Much easier to just go along with the narrative. But realize— it is just a narrative you’ve chosen to accept despite the lack of evidence. If you are comfortable with that. Peace be with you.

May God bless the ones who are disturbed. The ones who contemplate.

 

[Jim B]

Ah…. Because “so the story goes” — that’s a pretty low bar.

I take it you haven’t actually read the thread. I don’t like long threads either. Much easier to just go along with the narrative. But realize— it is just a narrative you’ve chosen to accept despite the lack of evidence. If you are comfortable with that. Peace be with you.

May God bless the ones who are disturbed. The ones who contemplate.

Scripture is "a pretty low bar"? What do you consider to be more authoritative?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah…. Because “so the story goes” — that’s a pretty low bar.

I take it you haven’t actually read the thread. I don’t like long threads either. Much easier to just go along with the narrative. But realize— it is just a narrative you’ve chosen to accept despite the lack of evidence. If you are comfortable with that. Peace be with you.

May God bless the ones who are disturbed. The ones who contemplate.

No – it's because I believe that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).
I understand if YOU don’t – but if it is stated in Scripture – it’s true.

If God can speak the universe into existence – why is the virgin birth such a tough thing to believe?
How do YOU think the universe was created?

BTW - I HAVE read the last page of posts. I guess I’m a little puzzled because the posters all claim to be “Christian”.
Like I ‘said – there is plenty if Scriptural evidence.

 

[Waiting on him]

No – it's because I believe that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).
I understand if YOU don’t – but if it is stated in Scripture – it’s true.

If God can speak the universe into existence – why is the virgin birth such a tough thing to believe?
How do YOU think the universe was created?

BTW - I HAVE read the last page of posts. I guess I’m a little puzzled because the posters all claim to be “Christian”.
Like I ‘said – there is plenty if Scriptural evidence.

Genesis 24:67 KJV
[67] And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
Matthew 1:24 KJV
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:


So how is it Joseph took Mary to be his wife?

 

[Mr E]

It’s not scripture that is in question. I supported the case entirely with the only two scriptural accounts available.

What is in question is people’s interpretation of those two brief accounts. A myth was created and that narrative has been perpetuated by the church for centuries. The original error is absent from the actual scriptures, and has been created by men.