Can we get back to the original point of the thread "holy thing"anytime soon. I'm back from taking care of some of my technical difficulties. Thanks, one and all.
Jean, I believe the last post that even remotely addressed the topic was in
this one (I'm assuming the link will go directly to the post but if not it's post 212, page 11). The DNA aspect of the birth of Christ is an interesting thing to consider. I think you mentioned it in an earlier post. Do you have any more thoughts on it?
I have lost some of the topic substance here and won't be at my computer in a couple hours or so but are we still questioning who Christ's parents are here? If it were God and Mary (which I believe it to be) then he would be holy. Mary was chosen for a reason just as Joseph was known by God to be a perfect choice to raise him as a son.
So I'm not sure what question remains regarding holy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Mary was chosen for a reason just as Joseph was known by God to be a perfect choice to raise him as a son.
Ya know, Chatty, I'm not so sure Joseph's "character" had much to do with God's choice to plant the seed in Mary. Not much is written about Joseph -- for that matter not much is written about Mary either -- other than knowing he was "righteous" in God's eyes and happened to be a carpenter. Sure, we can surmise that he was a religious man, but it's somewhat odd that in the records surrounding the ministry of Jesus only Mary and his siblings are mentioned. I wonder -- was Joseph dead by this time or did he simply not believe or care about who Jesus was -- meaning the Messiah. In any case, I think it's possible that even if Joseph turned out to be a creep it would not hinder the purposes of God. That would imply that men had greater power than God and capable of thwarting the will and purposes of God. I don't know -- do you think men have that sort of power?
I agree. It really matters not what Joseph's beliefs were IMHO because Christ himself housed all he needed to in order to do His Father's will. Although a godly earthly father would have been nice. There is one thing though that I have assumed since we have nothing in text regarding it and that would be the choices of Mary to be sound in regards to her companion. She was chosen for all the right reasons and if God knew she was going to marry a creep I would think that would impact God's choice.
I also think Mary was mentioned because she would remain an important character in this life's drama of God's. And not so that she could be worshiped as twi taught us the Catholic faith did. Because that is not true. But to be a far greater example to us mothers in loving our child but also allowing them to be who they are meant to be. You have probably already observed that a mother rarely lets go of the love she holds for her children even when fathers become disappointed in their offspring's choices. And I know that to be a general rule so please you men don't take that as a 100% deal because I know there are some fathers who shine while the mothers of their children as jerks.
I believe mentioning his siblings was important in ways I don't understand but I suspect part might be to validate the fact he (Christ) was a flesh and blood being just as his siblings were EXCEPT he was here for a reason they were not and that was to do God's will.
I agree. It really matters not what Joseph's beliefs were IMHO because Christ himself housed all he needed to in order to do His Father's will. Although a godly earthly father would have been nice. There is one thing though that I have assumed since we have nothing in text regarding it and that would be the choices of Mary to be sound in regards to her companion. She was chosen for all the right reasons and if God knew she was going to marry a creep I would think that would impact God's choice.
You're right (in my estimation) about Christ having what he needed to fulfill God's will. However, if I'm not mistaken, Mary had little to do with choosing Joseph to be her husband. Marriages were arranged back then. Nevertheless, we can assume (especially if you're a Calvinist) that the marriage was pre-ordained by God -- meaning God somehow put it in the minds of Joseph's and Mary's parents that the two should be married. That theology can get a little illogical when you follow it through.
I also think Mary was mentioned because she would remain an important character in this life's drama of God's. And not so that she could be worshiped as twi taught us the Catholic faith did.
Well, being a Catholic prior to my introduction to TWI (which was when I was young) I do remember hearing a lot of about Mary's status in the Catholic Church. Statutes of her had a very prominent position in most altar arrangements. But this line of discussion would again take us off topic, I fear.
But to be a far greater example to us mothers in loving our child but also allowing them to be who they are meant to be. You have probably already observed that a mother rarely lets go of the love she holds for her children even when fathers become disappointed in their offspring's choices. And I know that to be a general rule so please you men don't take that as a 100% deal because I know there are some fathers who shine while the mothers of their children as jerks.
Fathers during that time were responsible for providing for the needs of the family such as food and shelter. In today's culture that's not so true. So it's not so difficult to imagine how their minds would be focused on that side of raising the family whereas the mother would have the time to nurture the children.
I believe mentioning his siblings was important in ways I don't understand but I suspect part might be to validate the fact he (Christ) was a flesh and blood being just as his siblings were EXCEPT he was here for a reason they were not and that was to do God's will.
Well, one of the things you can learn from what little is recorded about his siblings is -- bite my tongue -- doing God's will takes priority over doing the will of your family if their will happens to be in opposition to God's.
Thanks for the quick feedback also Larry.
E-mail notification of replies to a topic of interest makes it easier to respond quicker. Being a multi-tasker it's a handy feature to have.
Good point Larry. The marriage of Joseph and Mary would not have been her choice but your continued thought on that lines up with mine. Even if folks could pick that apart. God knew all so He knew before either Joseph or Mary were even born what would be.
And good point on the father's role in that culture.
I myself have no problem with Christ (who of course was Jesus at that point but I prefer the term) was not going to be dissuaded to do anything other than what he was here to do no matter what his siblings or even his parents wanted of him.
As to the importance of Mary in the Catholic church that is definitely a derail but I do know that it is also dependent upon the church. Some still carry her importance above what God intended it to be.
I too have this thread on email notification and it's a great tool of the forums. I have to go into my controls and take me off some at times though because my in box can have from 30 to 60 notifications when I've been off line for even a day. :unsure:
I was just thinking that by the time Jesus was 12, he knew who he was. That would be a lot to absorb. He already knew enough Scripture to astound church leaders. I would think his parents must have taught him a lot. How would you even go about explaining to a child he is the Messiah?
Luk 2:47And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
Luk 2:48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Luk 2:51¶And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Luk 2:52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Can we get back to the original point of the thread "holy thing"anytime soon. I'm back from taking care of some of my technical difficulties. Thanks, one and all.
Actually the ark of the covenant sub-topic is pertinent to the "holy thing" topic, when one looks at this from a typology point of view.
Joseph's character was critical for the protection of Mary...whose womb carried the Word Incarnate, the High Priest forever, the Bread of Life.
Had she, an unmarried woman, have been unaccompanied when pregnant, she'd have been instantly stoned as an adultress. Had she been found pregnant by a husband of lesser character or lesser holiness than Joseph, he'd have put her out as an adultress and she'd have been scorned.
Excellent points Mark! I barely touch some of these things lately and yearn to get heavy duty into it but I need to learn the balance of that. Since I am in pharmaceuticals at work where our guidelines in every capacity are so strict I have chosen not to do any personal exploration on line while there, even at lunch. And this has changed the way I keep up here. So I have to figure that all out. But folks like you have so much in the top of your head that you can lay it out there before I can even think through the questions.
Joseph's character was critical for the protection of Mary...whose womb carried the Word Incarnate, the High Priest forever, the Bread of Life.
Yeah, I can see your point here. Surely God was going to have to protect Mary while Jesus was in the womb and He does "work through" men to achieve many of His purposes. However, you do realize that if you're correct then Joseph would have had to be married to Mary prior to the conception or there would have been a period of time when she was unprotected.
Had she, an unmarried woman, have been unaccompanied when pregnant, she'd have been instantly stoned as an adultress.
Hmm . . . it's been awhile since I've studied these things but, don't you have to be married in order to be considered an "adultress"?
Had she been found pregnant by a husband of lesser character or lesser holiness than Joseph, he'd have put her out as an adultress and she'd have been scorned.
Possibly. Or possibly God would have had to figure something else out. As it was, though, Joseph proved to be of the "right stuff".
Yeah, I can see your point here. Surely God was going to have to protect Mary while Jesus was in the womb and He does "work through" men to achieve many of His purposes. However, you do realize that if you're correct then Joseph would have had to be married to Mary prior to the conception or there would have been a period of time when she was unprotected.
Betrothal was sufficient...as she was still his responsibility.
Hmm . . . it's been awhile since I've studied these things but, don't you have to be married in order to be considered an "adultress"?
Honestly, I don't know if the rule of adultery applied to the betrothed or only to those who have consumated marriage. But fornicating females weren't treated too well, either...
Possibly. Or possibly God would have had to figure something else out. As it was, though, Joseph proved to be of the "right stuff".
And in all honesty, that's all any of the saints do, be they Saint Joseph, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint Anthony, Saint Maximillian, or any of them. They had to endure and show that they had the 'right stuff.'
Betrothal was sufficient...as she was still his responsibility.
Honestly, I don't know if the rule of adultery applied to the betrothed or only to those who have consumated marriage. But fornicating females weren't treated too well, either...
In Matthew 1:19: Joseph is referred to as Mary's husband. BTW, didn't Larry cover much of this in a previous post on Hebrew marriage customs at the time of Christ (page 5, post 92). Aside from Joseph's meekness in being willing to raise Mary's son as his own, there is also the record in which Joseph had to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt in the middle of the night to rescue them from Herod (Matthew 2:13-16).
In Matthew 1:19: Joseph is referred to as Mary's husband. BTW, didn't Larry cover much of this in a previous post on Hebrew marriage customs at the time of Christ (page 5, post 92). Aside from Joseph's meekness in being willing to raise Mary's son as his own, there is also the record in which Joseph had to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt in the middle of the night to rescue them from Herod (Matthew 2:13-16).
One of those nice KJV things...
ἀνήρ can be defined (Thayer's) as follows:
1. with reference to sex
1. of a male
2. of a husband
3. of a betrothed or future husband
2. with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy
3. any male
4. used generically of a group of both men and women
In fact, in multiple places it is generically used of an adult man. Jesus is referred to as an ἀνήρ in multiple places. Dan Brown notwithstanding, I don't see any record where he was married at all.
Looking elsewhere (Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27), though, we see that Mary was espoused to Joseph (μνηστεύομαι in the Greek, meaning to woo, court, seek in marriage; pass. become engaged, be betrothed + dat. ).
I have lost some of the topic substance here and won't be at my computer in a couple hours or so but are we still questioning who Christ's parents are here? If it were God and Mary (which I believe it to be) then he would be holy. Mary was chosen for a reason just as Joseph was known by God to be a perfect choice to raise him as a son.
So I'm not sure what question remains regarding holy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Is holiness of a thing judged by what is within or what is upon?
I have lost some of the topic substance here and won't be at my computer in a couple hours or so but are we still questioning who Christ's parents are here? If it were God and Mary (which I believe it to be) then he would be holy. Mary was chosen for a reason just as Joseph was known by God to be a perfect choice to raise him as a son.
So I'm not sure what question remains regarding holy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Well, I, at least, am not questioning it. I believe, like you, that it was God and Mary. I don't have a problem with God creating perfect DNA in Mary since God is the one who created it in the first place.
Oops, I did it AGAIN! Well once again this is Jean not John.
It is only the Y chromosome "scientifically" that was needed in the cell... But this chromosome "Biblically" was responsible for the "soul life" part also.
This has to do with the transaction of the redemption.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
38
36
42
61
Popular Days
Jun 7
37
Jun 2
34
Jun 8
33
Jun 3
32
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 38 posts
WordWolf 36 posts
another spot 42 posts
Larry N Moore 61 posts
Popular Days
Jun 7 2007
37 posts
Jun 2 2007
34 posts
Jun 8 2007
33 posts
Jun 3 2007
32 posts
Posted Images
DrWearWord
God is a holy thing...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
your posts sound cute and all wearword,
but there is no spiritual basis or logic to them
this is your I (eye) at it's finest, staring right back at you
read your own post
cya later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Jean, I believe the last post that even remotely addressed the topic was in
this one (I'm assuming the link will go directly to the post but if not it's post 212, page 11). The DNA aspect of the birth of Christ is an interesting thing to consider. I think you mentioned it in an earlier post. Do you have any more thoughts on it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I have lost some of the topic substance here and won't be at my computer in a couple hours or so but are we still questioning who Christ's parents are here? If it were God and Mary (which I believe it to be) then he would be holy. Mary was chosen for a reason just as Joseph was known by God to be a perfect choice to raise him as a son.
So I'm not sure what question remains regarding holy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Ya know, Chatty, I'm not so sure Joseph's "character" had much to do with God's choice to plant the seed in Mary. Not much is written about Joseph -- for that matter not much is written about Mary either -- other than knowing he was "righteous" in God's eyes and happened to be a carpenter. Sure, we can surmise that he was a religious man, but it's somewhat odd that in the records surrounding the ministry of Jesus only Mary and his siblings are mentioned. I wonder -- was Joseph dead by this time or did he simply not believe or care about who Jesus was -- meaning the Messiah. In any case, I think it's possible that even if Joseph turned out to be a creep it would not hinder the purposes of God. That would imply that men had greater power than God and capable of thwarting the will and purposes of God. I don't know -- do you think men have that sort of power?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Larry,
I agree. It really matters not what Joseph's beliefs were IMHO because Christ himself housed all he needed to in order to do His Father's will. Although a godly earthly father would have been nice. There is one thing though that I have assumed since we have nothing in text regarding it and that would be the choices of Mary to be sound in regards to her companion. She was chosen for all the right reasons and if God knew she was going to marry a creep I would think that would impact God's choice.
I also think Mary was mentioned because she would remain an important character in this life's drama of God's. And not so that she could be worshiped as twi taught us the Catholic faith did. Because that is not true. But to be a far greater example to us mothers in loving our child but also allowing them to be who they are meant to be. You have probably already observed that a mother rarely lets go of the love she holds for her children even when fathers become disappointed in their offspring's choices. And I know that to be a general rule so please you men don't take that as a 100% deal because I know there are some fathers who shine while the mothers of their children as jerks.
I believe mentioning his siblings was important in ways I don't understand but I suspect part might be to validate the fact he (Christ) was a flesh and blood being just as his siblings were EXCEPT he was here for a reason they were not and that was to do God's will.
Thanks for the quick feedback also Larry.
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, being a Catholic prior to my introduction to TWI (which was when I was young) I do remember hearing a lot of about Mary's status in the Catholic Church. Statutes of her had a very prominent position in most altar arrangements. But this line of discussion would again take us off topic, I fear.
Fathers during that time were responsible for providing for the needs of the family such as food and shelter. In today's culture that's not so true. So it's not so difficult to imagine how their minds would be focused on that side of raising the family whereas the mother would have the time to nurture the children.Well, one of the things you can learn from what little is recorded about his siblings is -- bite my tongue -- doing God's will takes priority over doing the will of your family if their will happens to be in opposition to God's.
E-mail notification of replies to a topic of interest makes it easier to respond quicker. Being a multi-tasker it's a handy feature to have.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Good point Larry. The marriage of Joseph and Mary would not have been her choice
but your continued thought on that lines up with mine. Even if folks could pick that apart. God knew all so He knew before either Joseph or Mary were even born what would be.
And good point on the father's role in that culture.
I myself have no problem with Christ (who of course was Jesus at that point but I prefer the term) was not going to be dissuaded to do anything other than what he was here to do no matter what his siblings or even his parents wanted of him.
As to the importance of Mary in the Catholic church that is definitely a derail but I do know that it is also dependent upon the church. Some still carry her importance above what God intended it to be.
I too have this thread on email notification and it's a great tool of the forums. I have to go into my controls and take me off some at times though because my in box can have from 30 to 60 notifications when I've been off line for even a day. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I was just thinking that by the time Jesus was 12, he knew who he was. That would be a lot to absorb. He already knew enough Scripture to astound church leaders. I would think his parents must have taught him a lot. How would you even go about explaining to a child he is the Messiah?
Luk 2:47And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
Luk 2:48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Luk 2:51¶And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Luk 2:52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I believe he knew things that even his parents didn't know of the scriptures. He had the inside scoop. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually the ark of the covenant sub-topic is pertinent to the "holy thing" topic, when one looks at this from a typology point of view.
Joseph's character was critical for the protection of Mary...whose womb carried the Word Incarnate, the High Priest forever, the Bread of Life.
Had she, an unmarried woman, have been unaccompanied when pregnant, she'd have been instantly stoned as an adultress. Had she been found pregnant by a husband of lesser character or lesser holiness than Joseph, he'd have put her out as an adultress and she'd have been scorned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Good point, Mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Excellent points Mark! I barely touch some of these things lately and yearn to get heavy duty into it but I need to learn the balance of that. Since I am in pharmaceuticals at work where our guidelines in every capacity are so strict I have chosen not to do any personal exploration on line while there, even at lunch. And this has changed the way I keep up here. So I have to figure that all out. But folks like you have so much in the top of your head that you can lay it out there before I can even think through the questions.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Hmm . . . it's been awhile since I've studied these things but, don't you have to be married in order to be considered an "adultress"?
Possibly. Or possibly God would have had to figure something else out. As it was, though, Joseph proved to be of the "right stuff".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Betrothal was sufficient...as she was still his responsibility.
Honestly, I don't know if the rule of adultery applied to the betrothed or only to those who have consumated marriage. But fornicating females weren't treated too well, either...And in all honesty, that's all any of the saints do, be they Saint Joseph, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint Anthony, Saint Maximillian, or any of them. They had to endure and show that they had the 'right stuff.'Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
In Matthew 1:19: Joseph is referred to as Mary's husband. BTW, didn't Larry cover much of this in a previous post on Hebrew marriage customs at the time of Christ (page 5, post 92). Aside from Joseph's meekness in being willing to raise Mary's son as his own, there is also the record in which Joseph had to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt in the middle of the night to rescue them from Herod (Matthew 2:13-16).
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One of those nice KJV things...
ἀνήρ can be defined (Thayer's) as follows:
1. with reference to sex
1. of a male
2. of a husband
3. of a betrothed or future husband
2. with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy
3. any male
4. used generically of a group of both men and women
In fact, in multiple places it is generically used of an adult man. Jesus is referred to as an ἀνήρ in multiple places. Dan Brown notwithstanding, I don't see any record where he was married at all.
Looking elsewhere (Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27), though, we see that Mary was espoused to Joseph (μνηστεύομαι in the Greek, meaning to woo, court, seek in marriage; pass. become engaged, be betrothed + dat. ).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Is holiness of a thing judged by what is within or what is upon?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Well, I, at least, am not questioning it. I believe, like you, that it was God and Mary. I don't have a problem with God creating perfect DNA in Mary since God is the one who created it in the first place.
Oops, I did it AGAIN! Well once again this is Jean not John.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
It is only the Y chromosome "scientifically" that was needed in the cell... But this chromosome "Biblically" was responsible for the "soul life" part also.
This has to do with the transaction of the redemption.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Faith is a holy thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the holy 'thing' is missed by most
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Don't fret it Jean. You're just illustrating how two can become one flesh. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Thanks, Larry. BTW, did my overly serious attitude kill off the thread. I really did enjoy the comments about nuts and eggs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.