Eastern Orthodox believe Mary was a consecrated virgin from childhood, i think.
If they didn’t consummate their marriage, it would make JC the biggest bastard in history.
You resurrected the thread to say that?
How does that follow from whether or not Mary and Joseph consummated the marriage after the birth of Jesus?
A marriage is not valid if it’s not consummated. Think about it.
Yes it is. Think about it.
Please explain.
No, this is wrong. I doubt your motives here, but a marriage is totally legal if not consummated. However, if not consummated, you can apply for a annulment. If you do get one, there was no marriage. But just not consummated doesn’t mean the marriage isnt legal.
https://marriedbyjosh.com/marriage-have-to-be-consummated/
*
A groom recently asked me, jokingly, but seriously, but laughing, but inquisitive: “Does a marriage have to be consummated to be legal?” Aka do a bride and groom have to sleep with each other to make the marriage legal.
Short answer: no.*
Fair enough. But as legit grounds for an annulment, non-consummation sounds pretty serious, which was kind of the point I was trying to make. If Mary and Joseph never EVER consummated their marriage, how much of a marriage was it really? I just don’t buy the virgin birth concept. At all.
The Virgin birth is one thing, but the idea of Mary the eternal virgin is only Catholic Dogma. Jesus had brothers, and likely sisters.
Henry VII married his brother’s wife and then wanted his own marriage annulled as contrary to canon. Wasn’t the key issue whether the brother’s marriage had ever been consummated?
Yes, a marriage* can *be annulled if not consummated. However, lack of consummation does not mean the marriage is invalid unless one side claims a annulment.
No. A marriage is valid once it’s performed. It is easier to annul if it’s not consummated (and trivial to annul if it wasn’t consummated because someone lied about being impotent or anatomically abnormal), but “invalid” is Hollywood law.
I don’t see how modern ideas of marriage and consummation applies.
Checking a number of sources gives summaries much like this one. (Information, unfortunately, mostly dating to the post-temple period.) Intercourse used to be one of 3 ways a marriage was finalized. The other ways of either a gift or a contract worked just as well.
So there was no need for Joseph and Mary to have sex to make things official. AFAWK.
OTOH, there would be social pressure for consummation to occur. Joseph would have been looked down on if he didn’t do his tribal duty to procreate (even Jesus would not have been enough, regardless of fatherhood matters).
And we know this from…?
The Bible and Josephus. Jesus’s brother james was one of the leaders of the early Church, that’s a matter of historical record.
Now, some say he is just His Half-brother or a cousin (the term "brother’ had several meanings), but the simplest way of reading is that James was His brother.
Cite? I’ve only heard of this as a theory, not a “fact” (and facts are hard to come by when you’re talking about the bible).
Cite for which?
Josephus’ reference to James the brother of Jesus
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1
*James the Just, or a variation of James, brother of the Lord (Hebrew: יעקב Ya’akov; Greek: Ἰάκωβος Iákōbos, can also be Anglicized as Jacob), was an early leader of the Jerusalem Church of the Apostolic Age, to which Paul was also affiliated. He died in martyrdom in 62 or 69 AD.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, teach that James, along with others named in the New Testament as “brothers”[note 1] of Jesus, were not the biological children of Mary, but were possibly cousins of Jesus[4] or step-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph (as related in the Gospel of James)[5].[note 2]…Apart from a handful of references in the synoptic Gospels, the main sources for the life of James the Just are the Pauline epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and Eusebius and Jerome, who also quote the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus and Epiphanius.*
There is no doubt among historians that James the Just was a real person.
Luke 2:7 reads, “And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn” (KJV). Why say “firstborn” if there were no others? Every translation of the Bible I’ve looked up at BibleGateway.com includes the word “firstborn.” Notably, the 1609 Douay–Rheims Bible, 1966 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Bible, 1970 New American Bible and the 1989 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Bible, all approved by the RCC for use by English-speaking Catholics, all include the word.
You meant Henry VIII, I assume?
Nope. When you’re talking about Jews, “firstborn” doesn’t imply a thing. There’s a whole special religious ritual in Judaism for a firstborn son (the “opener of the womb”), and you don’t wait for another child to perform it.
:smack: My aphasia or whatever it is keeps getting worse. (My sense of smell is returning though — perhaps because I’ve stopped squirting budesonide daily into my nostrils?).
Anyway, shouldn’t the spell-checker have caught the “Henry VII” ? 