Sexy Christmas Story?

Fanny Cradock

I came across this story on my virtual travels





So, was this challenging traditional perspectives with regards to a well know biblical story? (As in - "people have sex, you know".) Or was it simply a tacky and possibly blasphemous head turner?

IMO, while I can appreciate the humour involved and the desire to get people thinking differently about an all too familiar story, it seems seems to me that it turned out to be a gimmick - one that was sufficiently offensive to those who maintain that Mary remained a virgin (not a position I think there is any good evidence for, btw) that somebody felt the need to deface it within 30 minutes of its, er, erection. Added to this, I would think that the implication that God had sex with Mary (even if it's ultimately not meant to be taken as such) is undesirable.

All in all it was a nice try, but it sailed a little wide of the mark.

chozometroid

I'd go with "blasphemous head turner." This is simply playing on the fact that Mary got pregnant by a God, and how could Joseph live up to that "moment" of conception. There is no indication that Mary was involved in some actual sex act with the Holy Spirit, however, and it is totally unnecessary assumption.
This picture makes a mockery of the whole incident, and also makes Joseph into a modern day "whipped" man, who stands by his cheating wife. The Bible says that Joseph waited to have sex with her while she was pregnant.
Matt 1:25. And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

Joseph played a critical role in this whole ordeal in that he was chosen to look after his pregnant wife, as well as a child that was not his. God knew Joseph could be trusted. This picture removes all honor from this arrangement.

Fanny Cradock

Amen. The more I think about it the more I want to change my closing line from "it sailed a little wide of the mark" to "they shot themselves in the foot".

Coriolanus

What was it an ad for?

And

"Matt 1:25. And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus."

Never actually read that before. Doesn't that more or less imply that Joseph got to "know" her after she brought forth Jesus?

Anyway, I'm all for the defacing of publicly erected advertisements if they cause offense or are just obnoxious. It just so happens I'd have gotten a giggle out of this one.
I don't think they should be banned though, just not subject to undue attention and protection from the authorities if they do happen to piss someone off.

Fanny Cradock

Nevore wrote: »

What was it an ad for?

According to the article it was "aimed at 'challenging stereotypes' about the birth of Jesus Christ".

Nevore wrote: »

"Matt 1:25. And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus."

Never actually read that before. Doesn't that more or less imply that Joseph got to "know" her after she brought forth Jesus?

Not according to Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Other denominations would side with your interpretation though.

Nevore wrote: »

Anyway, I'm all for the defacing of publicly erected advertisements if they cause offense or are just obnoxious. It just so happens I'd have gotten a giggle out of this one.
I don't think they should be banned though, just not subject to undue attention and protection from the authorities if they do happen to piss someone off.

It wasn't banned, afaik. But given the reaction, I don't think it will be back for next Christmas.

Coriolanus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

According to the article it was "aimed at 'challenging stereotypes' about the birth of Jesus Christ".

Oh, it was literally an attempt to get a reaction then. If it had some kind of amusing byline it would have been better.

Not according to Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Other denominations would side with your interpretation though.

Wow. The grammar of the phrase seems pretty clearcut. Is there any more to the denial than "That's not what it means"?

It wasn't banned, afaik. But given the reaction, I don't think it will be back for next Christmas.

Didn't mean that I thought it was banned, just that as a general principle I don't believe in banning pretty much anything

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not according to Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Other denominations would side with your interpretation though.

The New Testament texts themselves tell us that Jesus had brothers, which means that Mary had other children after Jesus. They couldn't be spiritual brothers because Jesus makes the distinction between them and His earthly brothers in the next verse calling all those who do the will of the Father His real brothers.

Here's the text:

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you. He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:46-50

There's no room for metaphor in these verses. We know His disciples were not His blood brothers. And if the folks who wanted to speak to Jesus were not His blood brothers then why would Jesus make the distinction between the two groups? Surely if He hadn't actually got any blood brothers, He would have said that He doesn't have any blood brothers to those who came to tell Him that they wanted to speak to Him. But He doesn't do this, He seizes upon the opportunity to make His point about real brothers and sisters etc for the benefit of His hearers. And even if He hadn't got any real brothers and wanted to make the distinction anyway, His listeners would have thought it really odd because surely they knew whether He had any brothers or not. Heck even the people who came to tell Him that His family wanted to speak to Him would have known whether He had brothers or not. Jesus was pretty famous around those parts at that time.

Or maybe the orthodox churches are correct, and that the word for brother had a very wide usage and could be used for cousins as well. I don't buy that though, because there are other scriptures which teach that Jesus had brothers. James and Jude for instance. Hence why James had such a high position in the Church at Jerusalem. There is no record that he ever followed Jesus before the resurrection and there is no record that Jesus appointed him to his high position in the church and yet there he is, head of the church at Jerusalem. He could only have got that position because of is relationship with Jesus in the natural.

My point is that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. And it baffles me as to why some will just not accept that. She was an earthly woman, flesh and blood like all of us. She was blessed amongst women but she wasn't perfect and wasn't immaculately conceived either. She was married to Joseph and as such it was expected that she would have bore children for him in time just not before Jesus was born.

mark renton

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point is that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. And it baffles me as to why some will just not accept that. She was an earthly woman, flesh and blood like all of us. She was blessed amongst women but she wasn't perfect and wasn't immaculately conceived either. She was married to Joseph and as such it was expected that she would have bore children for him in time just not before Jesus was born.

Does this mean Jesus had brothers and sisters?

PDN

john47832 wrote: »

Does this mean Jesus had brothers and sisters?

That would appear to be the plain sense oof the biblical text.

Roman Catholic scholars tend to interpret 'brothers and sisters' as referring to step-siblings or cousins.

mark renton

sorry i dont read the bible - i meant the family kind of brothers and sisters

PDN

john47832 wrote: »

sorry i dont read the bible - i meant the family kind of brothers and sisters

So did I.

Soul Winner

john47832 wrote: »

Does this mean Jesus had brothers and sisters?

It does for me. A plain reading of the text says just that. We could jump through some theological gymnastic hoops and make it say something that it doesn't actually say, but the text itself and other supporting texts leave very little room to maneuver on the subject as already pointed out above. I don't see what the big deal is with Jesus having brothers and sisters in the natural. After all it was a command from God that they be fruitful and multiply, so what's wrong with it? All it seems to do is to rattle the theological cages of certain people who simply cannot accept it because of their man made traditions. I say let the traditions be damned and God's Word reign supreme.

Stephentlig

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her "not until")

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.
*****************************************************
Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Antbert

I think it's funny.

But then... It's quite likely to pop up on the 'Funny Side of Religion' thread over in the A&A forum.

I definitely don't think it was right to deface it. Kind of rings of censorship to me a bit.

El_mariachi

I think its funny and I also think people need to laugh some what more...

If this is something that offends you, you need to get your self in check, all the people dying in the 3rd world general seems like something more offensive that a crack about the birth of Jesus.

El_mariachi

john47832 wrote: »

Does this mean Jesus had brothers and sisters?

Yes - Jesus had brothers and sisters, as reported in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. The Gospels name four brothers, but only James is known to history.