Bible question. Where to research?

I remember reading (or maybe it was in a discussion) that Joseph had been previously married and had children. I don't remember any mention of what became of his wife. He was said to be older and his task was to protect the "nubile" Mary for her selected role as mother to Jesus but he was unaware of some details. Finding her to be pregnant with him as protector put him between a rock and a hard place for sure. Scriptures refer to Mary as his "espoused" wife which is not the same as today's ceremonial marrieds. Much is written about this test of faith for Joseph. There is a Christmas song...the "Cherry Tree Carol" that tries to address the trial of Joseph when confronted with the knowledge that there will soon be three of them. I believe this is found somewhere in unofficial or apocryphal writings.

Whether Joseph and Mary had sexual relations, I don't think anyone can confirm, although saying he "knew her not" till after Jesus was born, would seem to imply sexual relations occurred after that point. An odd thing happened as he was dying on the cross, in which he turned the care of Mary who was his mother over to a young disciple. If she'd had other sons, then why would he do this, since it would be his brother's responsibilities to care for her? The implication is that he was her only begotten.

her to John. One explanation that makes sense to me is that he knew her spiritual welfare was most important. Having taken care of that, he knew Jehovah would provide everything else. (Mt 6:33) Remember that his siblings were still not disciples of his, although his mother and John were. So he did indeed turn her over to his "brother."
What do you think?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

I think that he didn't start his ministry until his siblings were on their own. I think he made sure his mother would be taken care of after he was gone.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

was from a Different Source. Daniel and other prophets told the Jews to expect the capital-M Messiah at about what we now call 30 C.E. "Ready or not, here I come" would have applied to his family, too. Luke tells us Jesus was "about 30 years of age" (also important) when he began his ministry; 3 and 1/2 years later (also important) he was dead. Anyway, we sometimes forget "kids" were married or working much earlier than today. But no doubt Jesus appreciates your concern for his family.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

I think that's a workaround conjecture that flies in the face of the obvious. I could see someone believing he was making a statement about who his "brother" was. I just don't see that as being the reason, since it could have created a conflict if Mary had other children that could and were obligated under the law to care for her. It's an interesting, and if she had other children, a puzzling charge he placed on the both of them. I think the clues are there to indicate that either Joseph already had children by an older second wife, maybe even children the age of Jesus mother (which would make His charge more understandable), especially since Joseph doesn't seem around during Jesus ministry years. Was Joseph already dead from old age? Likely. Another concept is the other Mary was Jesus aunt and his "siblings" were actually cousins. Then there is the more accepted concept among non Catholics that Mary had Jesus,then gave birth to other children after that who were Jesus brothers and sisters. That moment where he gives the care of his mother to the young man, and a son to replace him to his mother, is truly a curiosity.

on newadvent, but I don't remember that. You might Google those items in your post to see what comes up.
BTW, one historical reason for the "espoused wife" bit was that they took these things more seriously than we do. And remember that Joseph and Mary were both exemplary, which is why Jehovah chose them. They didn't "date," they made lifetime arrangements after prayerful consideration of the matter.
From the bible accounts only we glean that Joseph was never wealthy, especially with 5 or more children to raise on a single income. Yet he made it his custom to take the whole family to the Temple for the three mandatory festivals each year, although only he was required to go. Couldn't ask for a better foster father.
Nothing we know in the bible requires a previous marriage for Joseph. And what I read on newadvent is that the dogma assumes no siblings; they were extended family, if anything. "Believe it or not:" the Papacy.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

doesn't record Joseph ever saying anything. He said more about his faith without saying a word.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I'll be there was some kind of [unrecorded] conversation about that pregnancy, since God kindly sent an angel to reassure him. Which also confirms your point. Which also says Laconic Joseph would have been a failure on SE!
Got lots of questions to ask him in the resurrection- if I get there.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

I knew I'd heard something like this, and again, this could be just folks were miserable until they found an answer or they just really had "National Enquirer" reporter in their blood. I won't offer it a truth but certainaly as believable to me as other offerings.

Link1
Link2


To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary?s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus? birth (Luke 2:36?37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus? adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary?s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.


Now, this will fall into the realm of Catholic "traditions" rather what made it to press in the bible. Such inclusions, of course, would have made the book a weighty tome indeed. But, such information was recorded by someone who knew someone that heard it said...etc. and not by Dan Rather's sources.

I don't remember any woman in the OT desiring virginity. Every woman wanted children. The most horrible thing that could happen to a woman was to be barren.

Lifelong viginity was a Catholic thing, not a Jewish thing.

Name one time in the OT where barrenness was a thing to be sought after. When God was punishing a couple or woman, He would close up her womb. Opening up her womb was a sign of God's favor. That was the reason that a man would marry his brother's widow so that the brother would have heirs through is widow.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

i.e. the one that can't want's, the one that can won't...

.

Check back at the end of summer vaction.



Dan

apostolic authority that was needed to make it into the New Testament.

'other' traditions.
And religious celibacy/virginity preceded Catholicism, according to a couple of references: Before the Christian era, Buddhism required its priests and monks to be celibate. (History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, London, 1932, fourth ed., revised, Henry C. Lea, p. 6) Even earlier, the higher orders of the Babylonian priesthood were required to practice celibacy, according to The Two Babylons by A. Hislop.?(New York, 1943), p. 219. (Hislop, BTW is too strident in his anti-Catholic stance for my taste, but his research seems sound.)

The Protevangelium of James is the book that tells the story of Anne (or Anna), the wife of Joachim, who was childless after many years of marriage. Finally, an angel appeared to her and announced that she would bear a child. In due time, she became the mother of the ?Virgin Mary,? it was claimed. But not only is this apocryphal in the Protestant sense, it isn't even in Steven's RC bible. It's much later in origin than any genuine scripture; Jerome reluctantly put Tobit et al. into his Vulgate on direct order of the Pope, but the others he dismisses scathingly.

Also, leading Bible scholars and ?church fathers? of the first centuries of the Common Era, on the whole, gave the Apocrypha an inferior position. Origen, of the early third century C.E., as a result of careful investigation made such a distinction between these writings and those of the true canon. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilocius- all of the fourth century C.E. and all vetted by newadvent's Catholic Encyclopedia- prepared catalogs listing the sacred writings in accord with the Hebrew canon and either ignored these additional writings or placed them in a secondary class. Again, this is Tobit, not Protoevangelium.
BTW, isn't Hannah's story touching? 1 Sam 1 & 2.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

A better statement would have been, "The Vatican eventually gave permission to its followers to believe the true story, which was in the bible all along."
BTW, was Gregory's 'overlapping' done ex cathedra, I wonder?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

that her name might have come from an expression meaning "curling women's hair" which refers to an adulteress. The name could also have referred to her place of origin. I have no clue myself. It could have come from something in her appearance that today might meant "like a painted lady". Personally, I have no reason to get distracted by wild imaginings of who she really was or came from.

BTW, I had to change my original expression to "like a painted lady" because it was censored. You get to guess what I said.

Where's a cybercop when you need one!
Revelation talks about the original "woman with the red dress on," and the KJV didn't mince words. Kipling had one of his characters refer to her in dialect as the "Hoor of Babylon." Got printed. Let's see if this gets past those ol' freedom restricters.
Regards, Doug who never lived in Hell, MI

was just a "groupie" she shared the maestros weed and wand.... a "hooker"? depends on your dictionary i guess..


.

It's here in a footnote I found but this is an RC bible site so would understand those who prefer not to accept it's authority.

5 [34] [Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."]: this portion of Luke 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution.
and link here but need to dig to referenced chapter/verse and follow footnote. Here

Good post, Steven, and thanks for the link. It's an electronic supplement for me to newadvent.org, which has everything but a bible. (The NAB, of course, is still in copyright; their other material is public domain.)

The NAB single brackets are like our double brackets, as I told Cindi:
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=94626&messageID=1071710

"AlephCVgSYc,p insert these bracketed words; P75BD*WSYs omit" is what our editors found. This means that the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, and the oldest Vulgate include it; they all date to the early or middle 5th cent.
The equally old Vatican ms 1209 does not, nor do the somewhat younger but still "fair" texts of the Bezae Codices.
And all that, in turn, means an honest editor will want to include the phrase, with brackets to put the reader on notice of the possible conflict. This is what the NAB and NWT people have done.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

I've often thought about rewriting a few biblical pieces from another's perspective. The first of these that comes to mind as they cycle through our litergical year is the the story of Abraham and Isaac. I'd like to hear it from Isaac's viewpoint....and why didn't he tear out of there when the bindings were cut?

Jesus was not a false prophet although that IS close to the reason the Jews gave for killing Him. Actually, the charge was that He claimed to be God or equal to God. In that, they showed they understood what Jesus had been saying.

However, Jesus correctly prophesied His own death. Also, many of the prophets of God were killed by an unrepentant Israel.

Second, Jesus correctly prophesied His resurrection, and He did rise from the dead. That would hardly qualify as the punishment of God on a false prophet.

Are you aware that resurrection of saviour stories are present in at least a dozen other religions/mythologies? Are you aware of the many holes in the resurrection stories? Shall I furnish you a list of both?

By the way, just because someone accurately predicts their death or another event does not make them divine.In fact, it makes them rather commonplace. Many others have accurately predicted future events. Are you prepared on that basis to call them god? If you are going to refute them as inaccurate or false prophets/messiahs/saviours, tell me which criteria you are using to do so. Then tell me why the same criteria can not be applied to the christian prophets/saviour/messisah.

Here's some reasons why jesus was a false and failed prophet/messiah.
1)He quotes a non-existent verse of the OT John 7:38. Was he using a different heretical series of non-canonical writings? If so this certainly qualifies him as a false prophet/messiah.
2)He said his kingdom would come before some of those listening to him died, Matt 16:18, Matt 10:23, Mark 9:1, lUKE 21:31-32.
3) By his own admission he broke sabbath law, John 5:16-18. This, of course falsifies the christian belief that the perfect jesus fulfilled the whole law. By extension, then,it is obvious that he was unsuitable to redeem us of our sins.
4) He lies to his brothers about going to Jerusalem, John 7:8-10 The question arises: Did god send a lying spirit, as he did in 1 Kings?
5) He delibrately obscures the gospel by speaking in parables so that people would not understand, turn and be forgiven, Mark 4:11 -12. I thought he came to save all of us? Sounds like a false messiah/prophet to me.
6) He either lies or performs no miracle when he says the ruler's daughter was dead Matt 9:18-25, Luke 8:41 -56. The context shows clearly that it was understood as a miracle.
7) He shows gross disrespect for his mother and the much cherished christian concept of family.He uses the same words with his mother, John 2:4, that demons use when they meet jesus. Hardly the words of a loving redeeming god-sent saviour.
a)He preaches to those who would follow him that they must hate their family in order to follow him.
He was not the product of a virgin birth. The Syriacus Sinaiticus say quite plainly that Jesus was the begotten son of Joseph. This alone makes jesus a false saviour, that is a saviour as defined by christians.
Mathew makes no mention of the need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved.

There is of course an argument to be made,just for fun,that jesus knew he was a false prophet destined for death and that it was obvious and a cinch to predict that he would be killed one way or another.

Best,

Testament, says something, it must be true. Sorry, but you will have to do better than that. I am referring of course to your point 10. The virgin birth is stated in Matt. 1:18 for starters.

In your point 1., the scholars respond with:

John 7:38 The words, "as the Scripture hath said," refer, of course, to the promise in the latter part of the verse-yet not so much to any particular passage as to the general strain of Messianic prophecy, as Isa 58:11; Joel 3:18; Zech 14:8; Ezek 47:1-12; in most of which passages the idea is that of waters issuing from beneath the Temple, to which our Lord compares Himself and those who believe in Him. The expression "out of his belly" means, out of his inner man, his soul, as in Prov 20:27. On the "rivers of living water," see the notes at John 4:13-14. There, however, the figure is "a fountain;" here it is "rivers." It refers primarily to the copiousness, but indirectly also to the diffusiveness, of this living water to the good of others.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

On your point 3, Jesus did not say He broke the law. Much of what the Jews thought of Sabbath observances was wrong. Jesus simply asserted His own authority by, as the Jews noted, making Himself equal to God. Where in the OT law was healing on the sabbath proscribed?

He did not lie to His brothers. He told them the time was not yet right for Him to go, and the text tells us that He 'stayed in Galilee'. He then subsequently decided the time was right to go in a hidden manner rather than openly. In any event, He was truthful is telling His brothers that He could not go openly as they did.

Yes, Jesus spoke in parables. His message was so revolutionary, God in the flesh had come to walk among us, that it took a lot of subtlety to present it. This has always been true of God's revelation. It is not given until we are able to accept it.

I assume that be lying, you mean He said the ruler's daughter was asleep. This is not unusual language and is certainly not a lie. The Apostle Paul speaks of those who are dead being asleep.

I don't know where you get 'words of demons'. Where did a demon ever ask Him 'why do you involve me'? His mother is asking (telling?) Him to perform a miracle. He is telling her that that is not acceptable. Since He is her God, it is sometimes necessary for Him to remind her. Notice that she takes no offense, but puts her faith in Him to resolve the problem.

Matthew's emphasis was on showing the Jewish people that Jesus is the messiah. Certainly the need to follow and obey Him is mentioned many times. Matt. 16:24-28 is one such passage.

You have apparently concluded that Jesus was an evil man. That is one of the possible valid conclusions about the life, claims, and teaching of Jesus Christ. You need to believe that He deliberately set out to lead people to condemnation by getting them to follow Him.