Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Given the newly emerging men's movement, I think we need to honor
    Joseph.  He is a marginalized character in the New Testament.
    
                                 Patricia

    It's interesting that both Mary and Joseph are both from the line of
    David and that Joseph is named as a begat although he had nothing to do
    with the conception of Jesus!
    
    -Jack

    .2  Er, uh, yes, Joseph's lineage is listed in two of the four gospels,
    but where is Mary's lineage provided?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard, both are not Joseph's, one is Mary's (Luke's).  There are several 
    significant points about the family trees recorded:

    Matthew is written from a Hebrew perspective, to show the Jewish regal
    inheritance of the LORD Jesus.  As such, it starts from Abraham, and
    selects the majority of people in the line down to Joseph, who, it
    specifies, was the husband of Mary, of whom ('whom' is singular feminine
    in the Greek), was born Jesus, who is called Christ (Messiah).  This tree
    departs from Jewish tradition in that it includes mention of 4 women
    in the tree.  It also specifies that only 14 generations are included for
    each of three sections of the tree (verse 17).  By comparison with the
    Old Testament records, it can be seen that some kings are omitted from
    this record, but it shows the lineage.  Notably it includes Jehoiakin
    (Jeconiah, v11), who is explicitly excluded from the blood line in
    Jeremiah 22:30.  None of his blood-line descendants were kings, although
    that was the legal line.  After him, his uncle (Zedekiah) was put on the
    throne, until the final exile.  After the exile, the rulers were
    governors under the subsequent empires, not kings.  So the adoption of
    the LORD Jesus by Joseph gave him the legal right to the throne, but
    bypassed the forbidden bloodline.  Adoption required two actions: Naming
    - until I found this, I wondered why *Joseph* was given the
    responsibility of giving the LORD Jesus His Name in Matthew 1:21.  The
    other action was giving him his job.  Jesus was referred to as both 'the
    carpenter', and 'the son of the carpenter'.  Matthew records the line of
    the kingship, and how it avoided the tainted blood.

    Luke 3 gives us the line through Mary, the human mother of the LORD
    Jesus.  He adheres to the Jewish tradition by not including any women in
    the line, but instead, mentioning the husband (v23).  "He was the son, so
    it was thought, of Joseph".  I have heard that the original Hebrew
    qualifies Joseph separately from the rest of the line, but my Hebrew
    doesn't cover that!  Luke's record demonstrates Jesus' humanity, tracing
    back to Adam.

    Significantly, the two genealogies diverge - or unite, depending on your
    perspective - in David, the last one to receive the promise that he
    would have the Messiah as a descendent (2 Samuel 7:11-12, Jeremiah
    33:20-26).

    Joseph's line then comes through Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), and the
    subsequent kings.  Mary's line comes from another son of David and 
    Bathsheba, called Nathan (Luke 3:31, 2 Samuel 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5).

    There is another interesting point to do with genealogies, which concerns
    the care taken in Israel over their accuracy.  Genealogies were preserved
    in the temple at Jerusalem.  Each Israelite child's name was entered
    there at birth.  When some priests didn't have legal confirmation of
    their lineage, on returning from exile, they were banned from serving until
    it could be positively verified (Nehemiah 7:63-65).  The real
    significance of the records was in that it identified the Messiah.  After
    A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed, the records were destroyed also.
    Except the significant portions preserved in Matthew 1 and Luke 3....

    Finally, it was also very accepted practice in 1st century Judaism (and 
    actually in the Older Testament times as well) when listing geneologies, 
    to only include the key people the Rabbi deamed important.  This was due 
    to the fact that most people knew the geneologies of key people (e.g. they 
    knew Abraham was decended from Noah so way include all those in between) 
    and that those geneologies were available through the scriptures 
    themselves or within the temple system.  There are several references 
    in the T'nach of where shortened geneologies are listed. 
    
    Mike

    I picture Joseph and Mary as a great example for overcoming sexual 
    pressures experienced by today's teens and adults.  When you were
    betrothed, you were as good as married in Hebrew culture.  You had to
    go through a divorce to absolve this 3rd level of engagement.  Yet, no
    matter the consequences, they persisted in the will of God, and abstained
    from relations until after the birth of Christ.  Joseph showed great
    obedience to the will of God for not "quietly divorcing" Mary.
    
    Mike

    .4
    
    Well, I just read Luke 3 again and it sure looks like Joseph's
    lineage to me.  Maybe I'm just dense.
    
    Yes, I've known the two genealogies don't match, but that fact
    never bothered me.
    
>   I have heard that the original Hebrew
>   qualifies Joseph separately from the rest of the line, but my Hebrew
>   doesn't cover that!

    It's news to me also that the original gospel of Luke was in anything
    other than Greek.

    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    matter the consequences, they persisted in the will of God, and abstained
>    from relations until after the birth of Christ.  
    
    	Some people believe that Mary remained a virgin forever.
    
    
    	Which would explain why Joseph is now a Saint!

    So I've heard.  God's Word says otherwise.
    
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses,
and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were
offended at him.

Matthew 13:55-56
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his
brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these
things?

Matthew 12:46-50
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood
without, desiring to speak with him.
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without,
desiring to speak with thee.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are
my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my
mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my
brother, and sister, and mother.

>    So I've heard.  God's Word says otherwise.

No it doesn't.  There is no distinction in Aramaic between "brother"
and "cousin".

Martin Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.

/john

re Note 1017.10 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Martin Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.
  
        The virginity of Mary, even the virginity at the point of
        Jesus' conception, has always seemed to me to be very
        ineffective as a sign of anything, much less a sign of
        something very important.

        After the fact, how does one know indeed that the mother was
        a virgin at the time of conception?  It is impossible to see
        and, absent planning beforehand (i.e., isolation from men
        enforced by reliable guardians during the period in which
        conception would have had to take place) impossible to prove.

        It's a sign that one can see only if one first believes it --
        it is inherently hidden to the skeptic.

        Bob

  Matthew 1:23-25 indicates that Mary was a virgin when she bore
  her son Jesus. But also indicates that after Jesus' birth, Joseph
  came to know his wife in a sexual way but not beforehand.

  Phil.

      I think had Mary remained a virgin all her life, that would
      very possibly have constituted sin on her part.  Isn't there
      something about man joining woman and they would be one flesh?
      What kind of woman would marry a man and then insist on lifelong
      abstinence?  (Although I believe the MAIN interpretation of man
      and woman becoming one flesh is spiritual.)
    
      In Mary's case (hypothetically as I don't believe this), perhaps
      one who thought human sexuality is a sin?  If its not a sin, whats
      the problem?
    
      They were husband and wife for crying out loud!  If above and
      beyond this scripture is silent in terms of what their marriage
      relationship was like, let each of us draw our own conclusions.
    
      But, to insist Mary was a lifelong virgin (all the while married)
      ...man that is bad theology.
    
                                                    Tony

      The main thing I get from Joseph is that he did not quietly
      divorce Mary.  I believe faith allowed him to discern the
      conviction of God that Mary really was a virgin and pregnant.
      What a man of faith!  Can you imagine really believing that?!!
    
      The other thing I think about Joseph is the silence of scripture
      concerning him.  Kind of makes me think of what John the Baptist
      said, "He must increase, I must decrease."
    
      I see Joseph as a humble, unassuming man who learned to 'decrease.'
    
                                               Tony

    In Acts, Peter is in a trance and Jesus said to him, "Do not call
    unclean that which is clean."
    
    Just as an observation, I find it interesting that some churches
    consider perpetual virginity a holy act anyway.  I believe God made sex
    a very Holy act within its proper context.  If Mary made a vow of
    sexual abstinence after marrying Joseph, then she would be denying
    Joseph what was rightfully his.  This of course being the case if
    Joseph didn't agree to it.  If Joseph did agree to it, it would be a
    noble thing to do.  
    
    The scriptures do allude to the idea that Mary wasn't a perpetual
    virgin but no where does it say that she was.
    
    -Jack 

    Poor Joseph.  Not too much concern over his virginity!  ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    Poor Joseph.  Not too much concern over his virginity!  ;-}

Joseph was an older man, most likely a widower.

/john

    	If that were true, then it is possible that the brothers referred
    	to in the Bible might very well be half-siblings from Joseph's
    	previous marriage.

	Whoa... where did you come up with Joseph was possibly married before?
Did his age make you think that? Are there Biblical facts to back that claim?

    Old men dream dreams and young men have visions.
    
    Joseph had dreams so he was an old man.
    
    Few older men in this society had never been married!
    
                                     Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    The verse you quoted from Joel was referring not to the idea that old
    men would only dream.  That was in relation to Pentacost.
    
    -Jack

    .20
    
    Hmmmm....That is an interesting possibility.  I'm used to thinking of
    Joseph and Mary both as practically teenagers.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

The perpetual virginity was dogmatically affirmed at the ecumenical
council of Chalcedon in 451, one of the first four great councils of
the undivided early Church, and is thus binding on the faithful.

/john

    Where in the Bible does it say Joseph was an older man, was previously
    married, and had children that were Jesus' half-brothers/half-sisters?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

The Bible tells us to hold fast to all the apostles teachings, whether by
word of mouth or by letter.  It also says that the Church will be led into
all truth.

The first four Ecumenical councils are considered by almost all
Christians to be just as infallible in matters of faith and morals
as the Bible itself.  This certainly was the case during the Reformation;
in fact, some of the demands of the Reformation were to return to a more
faithful adherence to those four councils.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was not seriously challenged during
the Reformation; the challenges have mostly come since the 18th century.

Now, on the specific points you mention, the councils have made no
pronouncement.  However, the councils have determined, under the
infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the "brothers" of
Christ are other relatives, and not Mary's children.  They may be
children of Joseph from a previous marriage or they may be children
of one of Joseph's or Mary's brothers or sisters, or other close
relatives.

If you don't accept the infallibility of the first four councils,
which determined the canon of scripture, you begin to destroy all
authority, including the authority of what is and is not a part of
the Bible.  The greatest crisis in the Church today is the crisis
of authority: we must return to the model of authority as it existed
in the early Church.

/john

    .27
    
    I'm willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was older.  The
    gospels don't seem to provide us with clues to Joseph's age.
    
    It is my understanding also that the term "brother" in those days
    encompassed more than the male offspring of the same set of parents.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re: <<< Note 1017.27 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>
                                   -< can't find it >-
    
     1.  >> Where in the Bible does it say Joseph was an older man, was
         >>previously married, and had children that were Jesus'
     2.  >>half-brothers/half-sisters?
    
        
     1.  You will not find this as such in Scripture.
    
     2.  You will find this in Matthew and Mark.
         I can't remember right now which chapter or verses,
         One of them, I thought Matthew was chapter 13.
    
     Joseph and Mary had 5 sons and a lot of sisters.
     
     Firstborn was Jesus (with Joseph as Stepfather).
     Second was Judas (Who wrote the biblebook carrying his name)
     Third  was James (who also wrote biblebook carriyng his name)
     Fourth was Simon (Not to be confused with Simon the Cannaneer or
                       Simon Peter the fisherman)
     Fifth was Joseph ( called after his father.)
    
     The sisters are mention as such, and not by their names.
    
    re 29. In the time of the children of Israel up till the destruction
           of the Temple, according to their genealogy, everyone
           descended from Abram were families, within the 12 tribes.
    
           In this context, all of them were brothers and sisters.
           So it was not needed to be out of the biological father
           and mother to call each other brother and sister.
    
          Through a lot of Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) you will find, 
          that although from another tribe, they used to call eachother
          brothers.
    
          This happened also in Greek Scriptures (New Testament), eg: in
          biblebook Act, where Peter start his Speech with.....Brothers,
          After receiving Holy Spirit to Speak in Different languages.
    
          So, the title Brother were used in 2 different situations.
    
    Rgds,
    Alex
          another 

    Assuming that Mary remained chaste all her life, I still hold to the
    idea that she was sinning in the eyes of God if Joseph was not in
    agreement with her.
    
    Regardless of the history of the council, the word tells us to test the
    spirits...be it a teacher, our pastor, our girlfriend, our spouse...we
    are told to test the spirits.  Peter himself was an apostle of Christ
    yet in Acts he still didn't understand the concept of salvation for
    all...gentiles as well as jews.  Lukes account does give indications
    that Mary finally knew Joseph...but it doesn't indicate in any way that
    Mary remained chaste.  
    
    I also agree with Richard that Mary and Joseph were most likely quite
    young.
    
    -Jack

        > Hmmmm....That is an interesting possibility.  I'm used to thinking of
    > Joseph and Mary both as practically teenagers.

    Richard,

    You're confusing them with Romeo and Juliet. :^)
    
    Actually, John brings up some very interesting point. Excellent food
    for thought, as usual. 
    
    Eric

>     Joseph and Mary had 5 sons ...

This is not in the Bible, and the infallible ecumenical councils and
the tradition of the Church confirm the fact that it is not in the
Bible because it's not true.

>     Assuming that Mary remained chaste all her life, I still hold to the
>     idea that she was sinning in the eyes of God if Joseph was not in
>     agreement with her.

But the early Church infallibly declared that Mary was "Ever-Virgin" by
giving her this title, and that Joseph agreed, by giving him the title
"Most-chaste Spouse".

The Bible clearly indicates that Joseph was spoken to in dreams about the
special nature of Mary's pregnancy and also that Mary was quite aware of
her special selection to be the Mother of God.

/john

	John, doesn't .30 prove anything?

    There is an extracanocal gospel associated with James that was used by
    the early church.  It discusses Mary's mother Anna, Mary's perpetual 
    virginity and that Joseph is an older man.
    
    Somewhere I have also heard a theory that Mary was also immaculately
    conceived.  My guess is that this might be the same source.
    
    Patricia

>	John, doesn't .30 prove anything?

The first half of .30 makes the assertion that Mary and Joseph had other
children, but provides no evidence to back it up.

There is no scripture which states that there were other children, and
the Church declared in councils that there were no other children.

The second half of .30 presents the argument for the "brothers" mentioned
in scripture to be other relatives, not other children of Josep and Mary.

No, .30 doesn't prove anything, but the infallible early councils of the
Church have complete authority.

/john

>    Somewhere I have also heard a theory that Mary was also immaculately
>    conceived.  My guess is that this might be the same source.

I don't know why you say "also".  Mary is the only one who was "immaculately"
conceived.  Jesus was "miraculously" conceived.  There is a big difference.

There is a long-standing pious tradition that Mary was conceived without the
transmission of original sin (immaculately conceived) by a special retroactive
outpouring of the saving grace of Christ's death on the Cross in special honor
of her perfect obedience to God throughout her life.

This is only dogmatically binding on Roman Catholics, having been declared
in 1854 to be not just a pious tradition, but the constant teaching of the
Church.  Other Christians may believe this if they will, but should in any
case not make any accusations of sin against the Mother of Our Lord.  It
is very inappropriate to say "You mama!" to God.

/john

    And what are the extra canical sources of these non biblical
    traditions?
    
    Patricia

>The Bible tells us to hold fast to all the apostles teachings, whether by
>word of mouth or by letter.  It also says that the Church will be led into
>all truth.
    
    ...it also tells us to test all things because false prophets and
    teachers will come in Christ's name.

>The perpetual virginity of Mary was not seriously challenged during
>the Reformation; the challenges have mostly come since the 18th century.
    
    It was not prophecied in God's Word that she remain a virgin and it was
    not fulfilled in the NT of God's Word.  It was a man-made doctrine.

>Now, on the specific points you mention, the councils have made no
>pronouncement.  However, the councils have determined, under the
>infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the "brothers" of
>Christ are other relatives, and not Mary's children.  They may be
>children of Joseph from a previous marriage or they may be children
>of one of Joseph's or Mary's brothers or sisters, or other close
>relatives.
    
    Thanks for the info, John.  However, if they were under the infallible
    inspiration of the Holy Spirit, don't you think God would've provided a
    more definitive answer instead of may be this or may be that?

>If you don't accept the infallibility of the first four councils,
>which determined the canon of scripture, you begin to destroy all
>authority, including the authority of what is and is not a part of
>the Bible.  The greatest crisis in the Church today is the crisis
>of authority: we must return to the model of authority as it existed
>in the early Church.
    
    The councils might have canonized scripture, but they didn't write
    scripture.  Big difference and definitely very different levels of
    inspiration to me.  The Holy Scriptures were God-breathed!  Regardless
    of the canon, God's truth would've prevailed because He would've made
    it prevail!
    
    Mike

>    It is my understanding also that the term "brother" in those days
>    encompassed more than the male offspring of the same set of parents.
    
    The Holy Spirit through Samuel made such distinctions in describing the
    trials of King David's children (i.e., Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom). 
    They were children of David, but with different mothers.
    
    Mike

>     2.  You will find this in Matthew and Mark.
>         I can't remember right now which chapter or verses,
>         One of them, I thought Matthew was chapter 13.
>    
>     Joseph and Mary had 5 sons and a lot of sisters.
>     
>     Firstborn was Jesus (with Joseph as Stepfather).
>     Second was Judas (Who wrote the biblebook carrying his name)
>     Third  was James (who also wrote biblebook carriyng his name)
>     Fourth was Simon (Not to be confused with Simon the Cannaneer or
>                       Simon Peter the fisherman)
>     Fifth was Joseph ( called after his father.)
>    
>     The sisters are mention as such, and not by their names.
    
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses,
and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were
offended at him.

    Only God deserves to be exalted.  While Mary was God's vessel, she is
    just a righteous woman as many Christian women are today.  God had to
    put her in her place several times in the gospels.
    
>Church.  Other Christians may believe this if they will, but should in any
>case not make any accusations of sin against the Mother of Our Lord.  It
>is very inappropriate to say "You mama!" to God.
    
John 2:3-4
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no
wine.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet
come.
    
Luke 2:48-50
And 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.
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be
about my Father's business?
And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

Luke 8:19-21
Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the
press.
And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and they brethren stand
without, desiring to see thee.
And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which
hear the word of God, and do it.

Note 1017.32

>    Actually, John brings up some very interesting point. Excellent food
>    for thought, as usual. 
    
Eric,

	I agree, as I indicated in 1017.29:
    
>    I'm willing to consider the possibility that Joseph was older.  The
>    gospels don't seem to provide us with clues to Joseph's age.
    
>    It is my understanding also that the term "brother" in those days
>    encompassed more than the male offspring of the same set of parents.
    
Shalom,
Richard
    

        Richard,

    My comment was not meant to imply that you disagreed, more that I was
    in agreement with you. I made it only to set the tone back to a serious
    one after my light remarks about confusing Joseph and Mary with Romeo
    and Juliet.

    Peace,
    	Eric

    re .41
    
    > Mark 6:3
    > Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and
    > Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
    > And they were offended at him.
    
    I couldn't find where it says "...who are the fruits of Mary's womb."
    Perhaps you can help. 
    
    Eric

It seems to me that Joseph provided an important role model for Jesus.

Had Joseph been a self-centered man or prone to abuse, for example, it
might have had a profound effect on Jesus' life and ministry.

Shalom,
Richard

    .44
    
    Ah, good.
    
    God's peace to you,
    Richard
    

    Richard
    
    That assumes that Jesus was a fully human child influenced by all the
    normal things that children are influenced by.
    
    If he is a God child, influenced from the beginning only by the Holy
    Spirit, then the character of Mother and Father mean nothing.
    
    With a different environment, could he have grown into a different
    adult?

    .48
    
    Patricia,
    
    It's the old nature versus nurture debate with God incarnate thrown
    in, eh?
    
    I don't know.  It seems to me that the parenting of Jesus was more than
    merely incidental.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, some would say his whole earthly existence was merely incident.
    That his whole purpose was to die?  So I guess it all depends on what
    role and what Christology one assigns to Jesus!

    .50
    
    Yes, I suppose.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	.48
        
    	He was like us in all things but sin.  I believe he was just as
    	influenced by the world as we are.

      RE:         <<< Note 1017.33 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
    
    >     Joseph and Mary had 5 sons ...
    
   >> This is not in the Bible, and the infallible ecumenical councils and
   >> the tradition of the Church confirm the fact that it is not in the
   >> Bible because it's not true.
    
    
    John,
    
    Believe it or not; It is written in the Bible.
    If you look for Matthew 13:54-60, the names of the brothers of Jesus
    are mention in there.
    
    About Mark 6:3, Mike already quote Scripture; Look for Reply .41
    
    PS: Sorry for my delays. It is because I live at the same hemisphere
        but on a different latitude, and most important on a different
        longitude.
    
    
    Rgds,
    Alex

>    If you look for Matthew 13:54-60, the names of the brothers of Jesus
>    are mention in there.

As you pointed out yourself, "brothers" does not necessarily mean children
of the same parents; they can be other relatives.

The bible does not say that these are Mary's children.

The Church has infallibly declared, in the early ecumenical councils
(binding on faithful Christians) that these were not the children of
Mary, but rather were other relatives.

/john

    Can you image Jesus as a two year old boy!
    
    Like us in all ways but sin.
    
    Never said no!  Always did exactly what his parents told him too! Never
    took off without his parents knowing where he was!  Never talking back
    to his mother!
    
    Angelic childhood!
    
    Patricia

re Note 1017.55 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     Never said no!  Always did exactly what his parents told him too! Never
>     took off without his parents knowing where he was!  Never talking back
>     to his mother!
  
        As in so many other things, Patricia, you gotta have *faith*!

        Bob

    But He did take off without his parents knowledge!  But I guess he was
    more like 12 then?  

    re:     <<< Note 1017.55 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>
    
    >> Always did exactly what his parents told him too! Never
    >> took off without his parents knowing where he was!  Never talking
    >> back to his mother!
    
    
    This was not exactly the case.
    
    E.g: At the age of 12 his parents were worried where he (Jesus) was.
         This was at the time when they went to Jerusalem to celebrate
         the Pasha.
    
    Joseph and Mary were yet some days on their way back to Nazareth
    that they found out that their son Jesus was not with them.
    Back to Jerusalem, at last they found Jesus teaching and reasoning to 
    the scribes and Pharisee's (learned men in the Law) in the Temple.
    
    Their first word (talking to Jesus) when they found him was:
    Child we were very worried about where you was.
    
    Just one of a couple of times when he (Jesus) disobeyed his parents.
    
    rgds,
    Alex
                 

    Maybe those are only "apparent sin"  and sin doesn't mean quite the
    same thing when applied to this child.  When my thirteen year talks
    back to me, it is being sassy!.  When 12 year old Jesus talked back, it
    was speaking from inner guidance!.
    
    What a paradox.  Being human in every way, except no sin and no sex.
    
                                Patricia

    	re .55
    
    	A two-year-old can't sin.
    
.58>    Their first word (talking to Jesus) when they found him was:
>    Child we were very worried about where you was.
>    
>    Just one of a couple of times when he (Jesus) disobeyed his parents.
    
    	This doesn't indicate that he disobeyed his parents.
    
    	We hear stories each summer about parents who inadvertently
    	leave a kid behind at a highway rest stop and don't discover 
    	it until a few towns later.  Quite likely their first words
    	to the lost child might be "Child, we were very worried about
    	where you were."  Often it is the mistake of the parents and
    	not the child that causes the mishap in these instances.

    The story, found only in Luke, is indeed a very human one.  I can
    easily envision Joseph and Mary meeting up with each other and both
    saying with the anxious dread parents know well, "I thought Jesus
    was with *you*!!"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Someplace I remember hearing that Luke had met Mary.  (Must have been
    when she was quite old, if it happened at all.)  With that in mind, it
    seems to me that a mother's rememberance would have a very human touch.

      re: .26
    
      Unless of course you believe this constituted part of the great
      falling away which Paul prophesied of.
    
                                                 Tony

A Study of the word "brother" as found in the Bible shows it is used in the 
following ways only:

	1. As childern of the same perents.

	2.  As descents of the same common stock. ( ABRAHAM AS FOREFATHER: ACTS 
7:23,25.)

	3.  As fellow men.(Matthew 7:3-5;18:15.)

	4.  As spirital childern. (Acts 9:17; Romans 8:29; Hebrews 2:11).

In the Biblical passages where "the Lord's brethren" is found, only the usage 
as children of the same parent or parents can be applied.

Matthew 12:46-47
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Luke 8:19
John 7:3
John 7:5
John 7:10
Acts 1:14
I Corinthians 9:5
Galatians 1:19

The Greek word for "kinsfolk" or "kin" is sungenes.

Mark 6:4
Luke 1:36
Luke 1:58
Luke 2:44
Luke 21:16
John 18:26
Acts 10:24
Romans 9:3
Romans 16:7
Romans 16:11
Romans 16:21

According to Matthew 13:55 our Lord Jesus Christ had four brothers or half 
brothers.  Futhermore, Jesus had atleast three sisters, according to Matthew 
13:56: "His sisters, are they not ALL with us?"  Had there been just two 
sisters the word BOTH would have been used instead of ALL.

The Lord Jesus was Mary's FIRSTBORN, not her ONLY BORN.

	The Greek word for firstborn is prototokos

Matthew 1:25
Luke 2:7
Romans 8:29
Colossians 1:15,18
Hebrews 1:6, 11:28, 12:23
Revelation 1:5

	Had Jesus Christ been Mary's ONLY son the Greek word would be monogenes

Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38
John 1:14,18; 3:16,18
Hebrews 11:17
I John 4:9

	When all the Bibical data is in hand, we are left with a plain answer 
regarding the Lord's brethen.  We know that He had four brothers - James, 
Loses, Simon and Judas - and that He had at least three sisters, whose names 
are not given.  Beyond this nothing is known expect for idle speculation or 
theorizing.

References used

Quick verse 2.0, Stroms concordance and Hebrew Dict, Youngs Analical 
Concordance, and KJV.

S.I.T (Perfect Prayer)

Tom

>In the Biblical passages where "the Lord's brethren" is found, only the usage 
>as children of the same parent or parents can be applied.

No, the usage of close relatives is what the early church believed.  Why
did people suddenly get so much "smarter" a couple of hundred years ago?
Even during the Reformation this constant teaching of the Church was not
an issue; Martin Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.

>According to Matthew 13:55 our Lord Jesus Christ had four brothers or half 
>brothers.  Futhermore, Jesus had atleast three sisters, according to Matthew 
>13:56: "His sisters, are they not ALL with us?"  Had there been just two 
>sisters the word BOTH would have been used instead of ALL.

No, the early church formally and solemnly declared that these were other
kin.  It is a recent departure from the historic teaching of the church to
think otherwise.

>The Lord Jesus was Mary's FIRSTBORN, not her ONLY BORN.

The use of the word "firstborn" does not mean that there are any additional
children.  The word is used many times in the bible to indicate the first
of one or more children.  Consider Exodus.  Do you think that when the angel
of the Lord smote the firstborn of the Egyptians those with only one son
were spared?

>When all the Bibical data is in hand, we are left with a plain answer 
>regarding the Lord's brethen.  We know that He had four brothers - James, 
>Loses, Simon and Judas - and that He had at least three sisters, whose names 
>are not given.  Beyond this nothing is known expect for idle speculation or 
>theorizing.

It is speculating or theorizing to assume that these are children of Mary.

/john

      Hi John,
    
        You know, the problem I have with some of what you say is
        that your basis for substantiation is one that others disagree
        with.
    
        You state that the early church absolutely had to be correct
        in its councils.  I just don't see it that way.  Why should I
        see it that way?
    
        I just don't see how scripture states that the early church
        would be 100% inspired in their councils.  I might appreciate
        what Luther wrote, but that doesn't mean I will read Luther
        with the underlying reasoning: "Luther said it, therefore it
        must be right."
    
        Anyway, it seems that time and time again you support something
        _with something_ that a lot of us just plain don't agree with.
        Maybe if the scriptures somehow stated that the early church 
        fathers could not possibly err...
    
                                                      Tony

    
    >Martin Luther affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.
    
    
    	I have a problem with this.  I agree with scripture that Mary
    was chosen by God to conceive Jesus Christ the Son of God and birth
    him as a virgin.  But I do not agree that she did not have sexual
    intercourse with her husband.
    
    	I feel that you are making these people out to be something
    bizarre.  They were humans, period.  Not freaks.  They went to the
    bathroom, had gas, flatulated, got cramps, had their period, belched,
    vomited, argued, cryed, laughed, were bored, had sex, etc., etc.
    
    	It doesn't matter what council of what, whoever said diddly.  The
    fact was they were human and that is what humans do.
    
    	To make anymore of them than that is to elevate them to a level
    that is not condusive to humility nor wisdom.  I respect Mary and
    Joseph as people who did what was required of them with intenstiy of
    purpose and with conviction.  I do not need to make them something that
    they were not to respect them as a man or woman of God.
    
    	

>        I just don't see how scripture states that the early church
>        would be 100% inspired in their councils.

Scripture says to hold fast to that which is transmitted by scripture or
by word of mouth.  Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church
into all truth.  At the councils, the early church confirmed both those
things which were scripture (determining what was and what wasn't) and
determining what had been passed on reliably by word of mouth.

Faith in ecumenical councils is thoroughly grounded in scripture.

/john

    The fact is that the early Christian Church had a major problem with 
    human sexuality.   The image of Mary the holy mother would somehow be
    less holy if she were pictured as engaging in sex.
    
    
    
                                Patricia

re Note 1017.68 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Faith in ecumenical councils is thoroughly grounded in scripture.
  
        Perhaps you are right, but this would be yet another example
        of how maddeningly subtle God was in establishing major
        doctrinal points (assuming, of course, that God authored
        every word of Scripture).

        Bob

      John,
    
        My quick take on this is that the early church, Ephesus, already
        began to apostasize.  Ephesus lost her first love.
    
        I believe that the last generation is the one that will be
        ready for the harvest.  Give Isaiah 5 a quick read.  God has
        done all He can do.  If the church produces wild grapes instead
        of good ones, it is evidence that they have fallen away some.
    
        Ephesus could have been the last generation.  Isa. 5 tells me 
        that God did all He could do and yet the good grapes were not
        produced.  He awaits a people willing to allow Him to work through
        them.
    
        My take on this is that Paul predicted a GREAT falling away.  
        The church could have produced good grapes (by the grace of God).
        It could have ushered in the time of reaping.  As with Israel,
        the church would not.
    
        So when I look at Ephesus and onward through the dark ages, I do
        so from the perspective that much of what transpired in terms of
        councils, activities, etc. can be better labeled a part of the
        great falling away and not a part of laboring for the Lord and
        allowing Him to produce good grapes.
    
        We could also discuss what entails the church.  If Israel is any
        example (and we know that "ALL these things happened for examples
        and were given unto us for our admonition unto whom the ends of
        the ages are come") we would see that the true church is not
        defined by ecclesiastical authority or formal gatherings.
    
        Hasn't God shown us enough Elijahs, John the Baptists, Jeremiahs,
        etc. etc.?  Do you really think the church at the time of Jeremiah
        received with open arms the word of the Lord through His servant
        Jeremiah?
    
        Well, yes it may have.  But, the church wasn't the guys with the
        long robes as you seem to imply it must always be in the NT age.
    
        The true church was hanging out in the mountains.
    
        I'll probably take the councils of the Waldenses in their mountain
        retreats over those of the 'professed church' any day.
    
        What you call 'church', our Lord just may call something else.
    
        The seed is spiritual; it does not necessarily follow an eccles- 
        iastical line.
    
                                                    Tony
        

Bishop KC Pillai wrote a number of books explaining Orientalism's in the Bible. 
 They are excellent books for understanding the culture at the time of Christ.

	"Since the Bible is an Eastern Book in its setting and language, much 
of it cannot be understood apart from the customs of the East, most of which 
remain unchanged to this day.  You will be astounded at the bueaty and power of 
Bible truths that Western minds have never grasped." 

Quote from Bishop K.C. Pillai

A few of the topics that he covered are:

	1.  Marriage Customs

	2.  Married or Engaged-Which?



S.I.T.

Tom