Did Mary & Joseph have a normal marriage

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1294591603' post='2198151']
Thank you for your gracious reply. You live up to your name for sure. I like you reasoning, but I just don't agree with it, so lets agree to disagree[b] for right no[/b]w.

[/quote]

Hey, no problemo! Thank you too.
"For right now".. so there's hope? : )
I'll keep you in my prayers. Please do the same for me.

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294619087' post='2198373']
Hey, no problemo! Thank you too.
"For right now".. so there's hope? : )
I'll keep you in my prayers. Please do the same for me.
[/quote]

Thank you for your prayers. And I'll keep you in mine.

[MithLuin]

[b]Mark[/b], question for you. Would [i]you[/i] touch a woman who had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit? Just sayin'. Joseph knew who Jesus' father was, and I really can't see him wanting to violate that in any way.

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1294624019' post='2198413']
[b]Mark[/b], question for you. Would [i]you[/i] touch a woman who had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit? Just sayin'. Joseph knew who Jesus' father was, and I really can't see him wanting to violate that in any way.
[/quote]

I don't really know how to answer that. . That's a great question, I'll get back to you on that.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1294624019' post='2198413']
[b]Mark[/b], question for you. Would [i]you[/i] touch a woman who had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit? Just sayin'. Joseph knew who Jesus' father was, and I really can't see him wanting to violate that in any way.
[/quote]
Good point. I know if I was a man, I'd certainly keep my hands off. Plus, Mary had shared a blood supply with God for 9 months. That had to affect her in ways we can't imagine. At a very basic physical level, it would be like having an internal spiritual dialysis machine.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1294626152' post='2198426']
Good point. I know if I was a man, I'd certainly keep my hands off. Plus, Mary had shared a blood supply with God for 9 months. That had to affect her in ways we can't imagine. At a very basic physical level, it would be like having an internal spiritual dialysis machine.
[/quote]

Good point. Her womb was consecrated to and for God alone.

I just did a double take, and I feel lame for repeating "good point". Ah well.

Edited January 10, 2011 by HisChildForever

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1294626520' post='2198433']
Good point. Her womb was consecrated to and for God alone.[/quote]

Good point. She was the Ark of the New Covenant, ie Christ, and we can clearly see from the Old Testament that the Ark was most sacred and protect from any defilement what so ever. When priests would enter into the Holy of Holys where the Ark was kept they would have a rope tied around them, because their was a good chance they would be struck down dead, and that was the only way to pull them out. Their was also a case when David brought the Ark back, and man went to catch the Ark as it began to fall, and he was stuck down dead because he simply touched it. Instead of the wood that carried it (or whatever was used).

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1294626520' post='2198433']I just did a double take, and I feel lame for repeating "good point". Ah well.
[/quote]

If lame is cool then I guess I'm just a big lame.

Edited January 10, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1294182318' post='2196675']

Besides, had Mary not planned to abstain all her life, her question of "How can this be for I know not man?" would have been ridiculous. Why ask how you can possibly have kids, if you plan on someday having sex?
[/quote]

This makes absolutely no sense. I plan on having sex, and kids in the future, but if a woman told me that she bore my child today I would rightly say "what the hell? i havent had sex with you, or any other woman!"

my desire or plans to eventually have sex in the future are insufficient to impregnate people in the present, thank God!

her statement "how can this be for i know not man" only refers to the present. she did not say "i have never known man, nor will i ever", and even if she had, her spoken assertion of the future is also insufficient to guarantee that she spoke the truth. many have said "i will never" and later put the lie to those words, with intent or through no fault of their own.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1294632806' post='2198495']
This makes absolutely no sense. I plan on having sex, and kids in the future, but if a woman told me that she bore my child today I would rightly say "what the hell? i havent had sex with you, or any other woman!"

my desire or plans to eventually have sex in the future are insufficient to impregnate people in the present, thank God!

her statement "how can this be for i know not man" only refers to the present. she did not say "i have never known man, nor will i ever", and even if she had, her spoken assertion of the future is also insufficient to guarantee that she spoke the truth. many have said "i will never" and later put the lie to those words, with intent or through no fault of their own.
[/quote]

Actually, I think it makes more sense than one might initially think.

The angel said that she [i]will[/i] be with child. Future tense. If she was planning on a normal marital relationship with Joseph, being with child in the future wouldn't be out of the question. It would be quite normal and expected. In that sense, I'd think that it'd make sense for Mary to say, "I know not man" regarding her future.

I'd like to read the Greek for that particular section of Scripture. That might shed some light on the interpretation.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1294626152' post='2198426']
Good point. I know if I was a man, I'd certainly keep my hands off. Plus, Mary had shared a blood supply with God for 9 months. That had to affect her in ways we can't imagine. At a very basic physical level, it would be like having an internal spiritual dialysis machine.
[/quote]
They've also found that [url="http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/LAH138.pdf"]some DNA from the child[/url] remains in the mother's body, so Mary would've perpetually had some of Jesus' DNA in her body after bearing Him. Pretty awesome.

[Papist]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1294559039' post='2198061']
It's scriptural that the Jesus had brothers and sister, and when he was told his brothers and sister just arrived with Mary and Joseph, he said, they were not his brothers and sisters, but every person who does the will of God was his brothers and sisters!

So I believe Joseph and Mary had a regular marriage - not that it matters much actually.

Jesus is the only one worth mentioning in this post!
[/quote]


We Catholics love Mary no more than her Son did.

It's a fool that looks at my finger when I am pointing to the sun.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Papist

[Socrates]

It is precisely because of the unique greatness and Divinity of Jesus Christ that His Mother who bore Him in her womb is given such great honor and a unique and privileged station. (Think Ark of the Covenant.)

If Jesus were just another baby, Mary's perpetual virginity and other Marian dogmas would make no sense. But since as Christians, we believe Jesus Christ is indeed our God, Lord and Savior, it makes perfect sense that His mother should be so honored.


The angel Gabriel evidently thought Mary worth mentioning (and honoring) when he said to Mary: "[b]Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.[/b]" (Luke 1:28)

As did her cousin Elizabeth when filled with the Holy Ghost: "And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. And she cried out with a loud voice and said: [b]Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?[/b]" (Luke 1:41-43)

But I guess they were just deluded Papists, lacking the advanced insights given to Superman-guy.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1294643802' post='2198565']
They've also found that [url="http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/LAH138.pdf"]some DNA from the child[/url] remains in the mother's body, so Mary would've perpetually had some of Jesus' DNA in her body after bearing Him. Pretty awesome.
[/quote]
when i saw that at The Anchoress, i was totally blown away

[Lumiere]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1294643802' post='2198565']
They've also found that [url="http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/LAH138.pdf"]some DNA from the child[/url] remains in the mother's body, so Mary would've perpetually had some of Jesus' DNA in her body after bearing Him. Pretty awesome.
[/quote]

Actually, if you read the article, the cells are only present during pregnancy, not after the pregnancy is completed.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1294559039' post='2198061']
It's scriptural that the Jesus had brothers and sister, and when he was told his brothers and sister just arrived with Mary and Joseph, he said, they were not his brothers and sisters, but every person who does the will of God was his brothers and sisters!

So I believe Joseph and Mary had a regular marriage - not that it matters much actually.

Jesus is the only one worth mentioning in this post!
[/quote]

Here is what Pope John Paul said concerning this taken from [size="4"]Redemptoris Mater

Link [url="http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0224/__P5.HTM"]http://www.vatican.v...NG0224/__P5.HTM[/url][/size]


[quote]

20. The Gospel of Luke records the moment when "a woman in the crowd raised her voice" and said to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" (Lk. 11:27) These words were an expression of praise of Mary as Jesus' mother according to the flesh. Probably the Mother of Jesus was not personally known to this woman; in fact, when Jesus began his messianic activity Mary did not accompany him but continued to remain at Nazareth. One could say that the words of that unknown woman in a way brought Mary out of her hiddenness.

Through these words, there flashed out in the midst of the crowd, at least for an instant, the gospel of Jesus' infancy. This is the gospel in which Mary is present as the mother who conceives Jesus in her womb, gives him birth and nurses him: the nursing mother referred to by the woman in the crowd. Thanks to this motherhood, Jesus, the Son of the Most High (cf. Lk. 1:32), is a true son of man. He is "flesh," like every other man: he is "the Word (who) became flesh" (cf. Jn. 1:14). He is of the flesh and blood of Mary!

[b][i]But to the blessing uttered by that woman upon her who was his mother according to the flesh, Jesus replies in a significant way: "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it" (Lk. 11:28). He wishes to divert attention from motherhood understood only as a fleshly bond, in order to direct it towards those mysterious bonds of the spirit which develop from hearing and keeping God's word.

This same shift into the sphere of spiritual values is seen even more clearly in another response of Jesus reported by all the Synoptics. When Jesus is told that "his mother and brothers are standing outside and wish to see him," he replies: "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it" (cf. Lk. 8:20-21). This he said "looking around on those who sat about him," as we read in Mark (3:34) or, according to Matthew (12:49), "stretching out his hand towards his disciples."

[/i][/b]These statements seem to fit in with the reply which the twelve- year-old Jesus gave to Mary and Joseph when he was found after three days in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Now, when Jesus left Nazareth and began his public life throughout Palestine, he was completely and exclusively "concerned with his Father's business" (cf. Lk. 2:49). He announced the Kingdom: the "Kingdom of God" and "his Father's business," which add a new dimension and meaning to everything human, and therefore to every human bond, insofar as these things relate to the goals and tasks assigned to every human being. Within this new dimension, also a bond such as that of "brotherhood" means something different from "brotherhood according to the flesh" deriving from a common origin from the same set of parents. "Motherhood," too, in the dimension of the Kingdom of God and in the radius of the fatherhood of God himself, takes on another meaning. In the words reported by Luke, Jesus teaches precisely this new meaning of motherhood.

[b][i]Is Jesus thereby distancing himself from his mother according to the flesh? Does he perhaps wish to leave her in the hidden obscurity which she herself has chosen? If this seems to be the case from the tone of those words, one must nevertheless note that the new and different motherhood which Jesus speaks of to his disciples refers precisely to Mary in a very special way. Is not Mary the first of "those who hear the word of God and do it"? And therefore does not the blessing uttered by Jesus in response to the woman in the crowd refer primarily to her? Without any doubt, Mary is worthy of blessing by the very fact that she became the mother of Jesus according to the flesh ("Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked"), but also and especially because already at the Annunciation she accepted the word of God, because she believed it, because she was obedient to God, and because she "kept" the word and "pondered it in her heart" (cf. Lk. 1:38, 45; 2:19, 51)[/i][/b] and by means of her whole life accomplished it. Thus we can say that the blessing proclaimed by Jesus is not in opposition, despite appearances, to the blessing uttered by the unknown woman, but rather coincides with that blessing in the person of this Virgin Mother, who called herself only "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk. 1:38). If it is true that "all generations will call her blessed" (cf. Lk. 1:48), then it can be said that the unnamed woman was the first to confirm unwittingly that prophetic phrase of Mary's Magnificat and to begin the Magnificat of the ages.

If through faith Mary became the bearer of the Son given to her by the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit, while preserving her virginity intact, in that same faith she discovered and accepted the other dimension of motherhood revealed by Jesus during his messianic mission. One can say that this dimension of motherhood belonged to Mary from the beginning, that is to say from the moment of the conception and birth of her Son. From that time she was "the one who believed." But as the messianic mission of her Son grew clearer to her eyes and spirit, she herself as a mother became ever more open to that new dimension of motherhood which was to constitute her "part" beside her Son. Had she not said from the very beginning: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (Lk. 1:38)? Through faith Mary continued to hear and to ponder that word, in which there became ever clearer, in a way "which surpasses knowledge" (Eph. 3:19), the self-revelation of the living God. Thus in a sense Mary as Mother became the first "disciple" of her Son, the first to whom he seemed to say: "Follow me," even before he addressed this call to the Apostles or to anyone else (cf. Jn. 1:43).




[/quote]
So Jesus when saying this, is showing that what makes Mary holy and blessed amoung women is that she heard the Word of God and kept it , she believed. So what seems like a rebuke when meditated upon is only showing the deeper blessing of Mary's motherhood.