It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mary did have sex with Joseph Mt. 1:24

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Matthew 1:24

When Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord instructed him; he took her as his wife, but had no relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

The Lord instructed him to wait until the child was born before having relations, meaning that they had relations AND it was God ordered.

Or else the angel would have said "Have no relations with her, even after the child is born."

Until means wait, then after do. No man defies God telling them to sleep with their wife it's why people married, so they could lawfully have sex and children.

This means that most likely Jesus brothers were half brothers because they had quite a few. Joses, James, Judah Thomas and some sisters too.

And Mary, not the 'wife' per legend, but the mother has a blood relative today as maternal dna is stronger than paternal somehow anyway, I think it means more of the mother passes along and survives through generations.

Jesus could have descendants of his maternal line today.

According to a Catholic Bible at that. If anyone has a reason to hide Mt. 1:24 it's them.

Yet they don't even bother. And yet insist Mary never had sex.
edit on 11-1-2017 by TerriblePhoenix because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Oh, for heavens sake!

You are basing your argument on the effect of a single word in the New Testament.

You are doing so after the text has been translated, possibly twice with no understanding that you would need to go back to the original texts that may be in Latin, Ancient Greek or other languages used.

You are referencing copies of the originals when many of the original documents are lost to us, (or hidden away by the Church)

Lastly, the Church has been tampering with the good book for almost one and a half thousand years.

Good luck but frankly, you are out on a limb.

P

edit on 11/1/2017 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Mary had other children after Jesus was born, they were Josephs kids. There is nobody denying that. An occasional woman has a baby without a guy, that is uncommon but not impossible. In fact, maybe some married women had a kid with their husband and it actually is not their husbands at all. They could have just had a kid on their own. We will never know how many times this actually happens unless a genetic test is done and even so, it will show the father not the father if she had immaculate conception. She may not have even cheated.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Good to see someone pick up on these little truths in the Bible .
Keep reading and studying OP and more of the fake biblical news will fall by the wayside .



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

SO what's your point? Did Mary and Joseph toss in the hay, or not?

Is Mary a perpetual virgin, or did she loose her virginity?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
of course she had sex, where do you think jesus`s brothers came from?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Joseph and another non-perpetual virgin wife? They ARE 1/2 brothers and men did have more than one wife in those days. So, it's not impossible that his brothers were from another mother, and step-daddy Joseph got around!



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
of course she had sex, where do you think jesus`s brothers came from?


I know this, I just said this.

But the Catholic Church would say they are from a previous marriage so without this verse they could be right.

.Did you not consider the previous marriage of Joseph before you said of course?

My point is that there is proof in Matthew chapter one in a Catholic Bible yet they still say perpetual virgin.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes there are millions of people who deny it.

Catholics.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
Oh, for heavens sake!

You are basing your argument on the effect of a single word in the New Testament.

You are doing so after the text has been translated, possibly twice with no understanding that you would need to go back to the original texts that may be in Latin, Ancient Greek or other languages used.

You are referencing copies of the originals when many of the original documents are lost to us, (or hidden away by the Church)

Lastly, the Church has been tampering with the good book for almost one and a half thousand years.

Good luck but frankly, you are out on a limb.

P



It's an accurate and Catholic translation.

One word matters, so yes, I am basing what I say on one important word.

Until. It means while she is pregnant don't have relations, until the child is born.

Obviously they were free to do the deed afterwards as any married couple, under no ban AND given permission.

And you think they didn't do it? Have you had sex?

Blaming translation or denying one words impact being significant enough is just desperate uneducated argumentative nonsense.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Sometimes I really wonder how there are adults who can believe this literally in the first place.

there are a thousand questions that naturally come up...such as how did she get impregnated without having sex, how did she know it was god? (coulda been a genetic scientist alien after all, or Satan, or etc), Why did she feel compelled to have Joseph cover for her instead of tell the world? Why would Joseph believe her? etc etc.


Personally, if the events played out at all, I think its more this being the result of perhaps some roman soldiers having their way with some random hebrew woman out by herself. She asked Jo to be dad because he always fancied her and she needed some help after the event and didn't want to be a outcast, voila. birth without (willing) sex

That is a story far more believable, and with no less quality towards who Mary is as a person. Could also be a good story on how even rapes can have positive outcomes.


BTW, this is made up (probably) but not by me. I was watching this random "psychic medium" who claimed to be chatting with Mary and this is the story that was given. Sure..why not.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

So what do you think about the little kerfuffle while Mary was staying with her cousin Elizabeth during Elizabeth's pregnancy. Remember? Mary showed up as a kinswoman as was the custom then to aid in the pregnancy. The baby in Elizabeth's womb jumped and Elizabeth recognized Mary to be the mother of the coming messiah. Yet, at that time Mary was not yet pregnant. Then, a weird thing happened. Rather than staying with her kinswoman Elizabeth through the birth and into the first weeks after childbirth, May up and leaves Elizabeth's and Zachariah's house prior to the birth. What was that all about. Why didn't she stay through childbirth.

Did something happen so that the cousins had a falling out? Did Elizabeth kick Mary out of the house for some reason even though she had received the knowledge of Mary's coming child? I try to explain this deviation from normal family responsibilities and come up with a very simple answer that explains the ' virgin birth'.

I think that the pregnant Elizabeth was not much in a mind for sex and so had shut off her husband Zachariah. Zachariah I think turned to Mary for it and Elizabeth caught them and kicked Mary out of the house. It was kept quiet because of the mores of the day and that Zachariah was a church leader. Hence, Mary, as far as anyone else knew was still a virgin because neither Zachariah or Elizabeth wanted the stigmata of the out of wedlock sex going on in their house.

And of course this leads to another very interesting possibility. Under this scenario, Jesus, and John the Baptist were brothers.


edit on 31America/ChicagoWed, 11 Jan 2017 20:35:58 -0600Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:35:58 -060017012017-01-11T20:35:58-06:00800000035 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes there are millions of people who deny it.

Catholics.


Jesus's brother is well known of in bible research, but it appears the Catholics do not accept it and want people to believe that Mary was always virgin. I don't know why they would have taken that stance. The first born male was the most important thing. There is no rule that the Messiah was not allowed to have half brothers. Someone made that up along the way.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: pheonix358

SO what's your point? Did Mary and Joseph toss in the hay, or not?

Is Mary a perpetual virgin, or did she loose her virginity?





They had to toss in the hay. That was the commandment from the LORD in the book of genesis. To be fruitful and multiply. To join their two flesh to become one flesh. By the LORD's command the husband and wife must have sex.

If a wife doesn't have sex with her husband, she is not a wife, but a maid.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Yep, totally agree.
Mary had other children, the Catholics want people to believe otherwise, its her (catholics) pagan roots showing through.
The mother earth thing.
Jesus had siblings, thats reasonably well established... in my opinion



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Mary had other children after Jesus was born, they were Josephs kids. There is nobody denying that. An occasional woman has a baby without a guy, that is uncommon but not impossible. In fact, maybe some married women had a kid with their husband and it actually is not their husbands at all. They could have just had a kid on their own. We will never know how many times this actually happens unless a genetic test is done and even so, it will show the father not the father if she had immaculate conception. She may not have even cheated.


You're saying a human female can reproduce asexually?

I think you skipped sex education in school.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Very interesting, one cant help but wonder as Elizabeth came from a very wealthy family and they were instrumental in providing an education for Jesus.

A lot of things dont jell when it comes to his teaching in the synagogues, here's some text about the requirement of being married to be called a Rabbi

judaism.stackexchange.com...


"Part of the context of this question is that it is written that Jesus was called "Rabbi", yet Christian canon holds that Jesus was never married (a claim of which I am skeptical)." In response to this part of your inquiry, I can answer you that, by the time of Jesus, the title "rabbi" and correlates were not exclusively used in a formal manner as it is today in judaism in reference to authorized clergy. On the contrary, it was sometimes used in reference to non-clergy and non-pharisaic individuals who had acquired a religious following as a means of attributing honor.

Also, not all recognized pharisaic authorities (that time's rabbis) had the rabbi title attached to their names, as was, for example, the case for Hillel The Elder. Later rabbinc authorities also don't always have the title, as is the case for the Sage Shmuel, and many others. All this to say that: even if it could be proven that in rabbinic judaism historically one would have to be married to be a recognized rabbi, it does not follow from it that Jesus was married just because he was called a rabbi, since the title was not exclusively used in this formal manner by that time, being some times attributed to religious leaderships independent of formal training, recognition and, needless to say, any other requirement for official ordination as a rabbi.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Sometimes I really wonder how there are adults who can believe this literally in the first place.

there are a thousand questions that naturally come up...such as how did she get impregnated without having sex, how did she know it was god? (coulda been a genetic scientist alien after all, or Satan, or etc), Why did she feel compelled to have Joseph cover for her instead of tell the world? Why would Joseph believe her? etc etc.


Personally, if the events played out at all, I think its more this being the result of perhaps some roman soldiers having their way with some random hebrew woman out by herself. She asked Jo to be dad because he always fancied her and she needed some help after the event and didn't want to be a outcast, voila. birth without (willing) sex

That is a story far more believable, and with no less quality towards who Mary is as a person. Could also be a good story on how even rapes can have positive outcomes.


BTW, this is made up (probably) but not by me. I was watching this random "psychic medium" who claimed to be chatting with Mary and this is the story that was given. Sure..why not.


The reason people believe in the literal historical fashion is from the get go Christianity denounced education in favor of faith.

The Gospels are esoteric not literally meant to be considered history.

Educated people such as so called Gnostics were persecuted, knowledge is power today, then it was a capital offense.

Prior to Constantine Rome was a philosophical haven with an educational system which was replaced with the Churches and the fact that they didn't understand the philosophy behind the mythology shows how unconnected they were to the past.

Christians were in the beginning and today people who believe knowledge makes you arrogant, is for the vain, and any investigation into the meaning of the esoteric teachings of Jesus is said to be occultism or nonsense.

Then after having no idea what Jesus was talking about they turned to Paul who never knew Jesus and didn't know of Jesus teachings, his letters are such simplistic nonsense that they gravitated to them, they didn't realize even that Paul insults the apostles many times and was no friend.

What I am getting at is the Gospel of Jesus is actually sophisticated esoteric literature meant to teach spiritual lessons that uneducated classes of Romans could not grasp, yet adopted as theirs and turned it into history.

Now as then very few Christians understand Jesus and rely on Paul to interpret what he didn't know existed, or had no knowledge of.

The spiritual meaning behind Jesus teachings that is.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

Yep, totally agree.
Mary had other children, the Catholics want people to believe otherwise, its her (catholics) pagan roots showing through.
The mother earth thing.
Jesus had siblings, thats reasonably well established... in my opinion


I would consider it a fact that they had sex, according to Mt.

The usual results being children it is hardly just opinion, more common sense.

Right on. I don't dislike Catholics, but the clergy.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join