Jameskaddis
Spirituality/Belief • Culture • News
James Kaddis community
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Pastor Kaddis, I really love the insight that you have in The Bible. You have the very best understanding of End Time Prophecy of any Pastor I've ever had the pleasure of listening to. You're very knowledgeable in all of it.

But there is one area that kind of gave me pause. When you were speaking about The birth of Jesus, you said that Mary and Joseph didn't get married until after Jesus was born. I don't think that is quite right and I'll tell you why I think that way.

If an unmarried woman showed up pregnant, it was the system to stone her to death for procreating outside of marriage to put it politely. If the man was known, he would get the same punishment. Because they would both be breaking a major commandment of God.

You and I know that Jesus' true father was Our Heavenly Father. But the people of the day did not know that before his birth. Just like they didn't know that he was the Son of God when he was crucified.

At first, Mary was hidden away at her cousin Elizabeth's house because the family didn't want to see her stoned to death. At first, Joseph wanted no part of marriage with Mary because he thought she'd been with another man, knowing that he had never touched her in an inappropriate way.

What would have happened most likely, because of that, is that Mary and Joseph would have gotten married as God told him to do that and to raise Jesus as his son. Joseph obeyed. Because if he hadn't, God would have had to put all kinds of protections in place for Mary and she would have been called names maybe for the rest of her life and would have been an outcast, which she was not.

The only thing that would not have been able to happen, would have been the consumation of the marriage. Because it had to be a virgin birth which Joseph would have waited for also. It said that Jesus had siblings later on, which meant that he was the oldest of the children. At least that's how I took it to be. Because it talks about his brother, and I believe it might have mentioned other siblings in passing, not necessarily by name. I'd have to review again on that part. But for sure Jesus' brother was around him and the apostles at least sometimes.

The only people who had to know about when the actual Consumation of the marriage occurred, would have been Mary, Joseph, and God. All the family and the public had to see was a marriage while Mary was pregnant to keep her from being stoned. So Joseph stepped up, claimed Jesus as his, and married the girl that he loved in order to save her life, and the life of Jesus. Which we know that God would have intervened if he would have had to have done so. But then that would reveal who Jesus was, and would have made it more difficult for him to have become the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. This kept Mary's name, and the family name of Mary's family, from being ruined as well. So it would have had to have happened. I don't see any other way that it could have. Because everything about Jesus birth also needed to be righteous and pure, which it already was. But it had to look that way to the people who believed in God's commandments.

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Was This "Prophetic?"

Thank you for your support!

00:00:49
This Is Real Zionism!

Thank you for your support!

00:00:54
Beware Of The AI Lie!

Thank you for your support!

00:01:02
Bitterness And Gratitude!

Thank you for your support!

Bitterness And Gratitude!
Communication...

Thank you for your support!

Communication...
I Give My Life To You!

Thank you for your support!

I Give My Life To You!
February 24, 2026

Coming to a country near you.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DQTAF4pF6/

post photo preview

A while back, I told you that Tim Cohen wrote a book called The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea. He and Craig Bong both say that King Charles is The Antichrist. I don't know if that's true or not, but they both swear to it. They said that King Charles' Prince of Wales name and his Coat of Arms as Prince Of Wales show that he is due to the symbology of those things. You know that King Charles has lands at his disposal, lots of money at his disposal, and he's related to the Rothchilds. He's also said to be King of Israel and claims to be of King David's lineage even though he's not. But he is related to Mohammed. It's like he's related to many past rulers of the world also. I thought he was too sick and too old for that, but I dunno. Wouldn't King Charles be able to take control of 3 Kingdoms of the 10? Wiliam wouldn't rule the UK. If he's King of Israel, then that would be the 2nd Kingdom. If he's to control the re-established Roman Empire, wouldn't he also be in charge of ...

January 15, 2026

Beautiful winter day. What happens when you combine thick fog with subfreezing temperatures.

See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals