Results 21 - 40 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What happens to people who never hear? | Rom 1:20 | biblicalman | 229548 | ||
Hi Ismaila, Another group of verses to take into account when considering this question are Romans 2.14-16. They may well indicate that in a limited number of cases some who have not heard of Christ will be acceptable to God because they have responded to His call in their hearts (although their acceptance will of course be on the basis of the cross). We must also remember that when Paul was writing many Jews among the dispersion would not have heard of Christ. To them therefore the Old testament teaching would still apply. There are unquestionably cases where missionaries have gone to certain peoples and have been approached by some who said, 'We know the God Whom you are talking about, and we have been waiting for you to come.' The ways of God are wonderful. If you want a good read and want to read an amazing story try to get hold of a copy of 'Mimosa', by Amy Carmichael. (Dohnavur Press). You will end up saying, 'My God, how great thou art'. Best wishes |
||||||
22 | what is important about 40 | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229547 | ||
I cannot agree that if we give a significance to a number in certain contexts it has to be consistent throughout the Scriptures. The use of numbers developed over time. It may well be that in some cases a number had a significance for a certain time, and that that significance was then dropped. I would see the 40 years old of Isaac and Esau when they married in that light (although I suppose marriage could be seen as a trial - lol). The periods of forty years in the wilderness, forty years rest on Judges (three times), forty years of Eli's rule, forty years of David's rule, and forty years of Solomon's rule are in a cluster. They may well indicate 'a generation'. But this does not tie forty down to always meaning a generation (it could only do so in the case of years). Or it could be that the same number has twofold significance, used in one way sometimes, and another way the other. The Bible was written by a large number of different authors and they could well have had their own viewpoint. This is why when a pattern does emerge it suggests that it is significant. The spies went out for forty days (possibly a round number) which may well have been intended to indicate a significant period of testing out the land. The 'forty years' of wandering, was in fact thirty eight years. Thus the 40 years brought in their journeying, and encampment at Sinai, before they started wandering. But it was called forty years because instead of Canaan being tested, they were being tested. Note how in fact they are deliberately contrasted. The forty men who sought to kill Paul parallesl the forty days of Goliath's testing of Israel. Both had a death in mind. It was certainly a test of Paul's faith, and of his calling, as it was with Israel. 1 Kings 6:17 and 7:38 are measurements which may well not have been seen in the same light. There is in fact a forty year period during which Israel was under the rule of another country (Judges 13.1), and this may well be intended to cotrast with the 40 years periods of rest. It was thus both a period of trial, and indicating a generation. I am not sure why just because forty is intended to indicate a period of testing and trial it must therefore follow that all periods of testing have to be forty years. Approximate length of time also has to be taken into account. Incidentally Judah were not in Babylon for seventy years. Even if we commence the period from the first exile in 605 BC the period was only 67 years. But Jeremiah did not say that they would be. His seventy year prophecy was concerning the period when 'these nations (including all the nations round about) will serve the King of Babylon'. Thus we can date it from 609 BC (when Nebuchadnexzzar first operated against the nations) to 539 BC. And of course 70 is the number of divine completeness. We can compare the deliberate manipulation of the names of the patriarchs who went into Egypt (Genesis 46.8-27), who of course went with 'their households' probably numbering a few thousand. Best wishes |
||||||
23 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | biblicalman | 229539 | ||
Hi Ismaila, It is a controversial question partly because women don't like the Scriptural emphasis. I will give you three pointers: 1). Jesus only appointed male Apostles, even though women disciples were travelling around with Him (Luke 8.2). 2). Paul stated that no woman should teach authoritatively or have overall authority in the church (1 Tim 2.12). 3). Paul said 'the head of the woman is the man' confirming 2). (1 Cor 11.3). Best wishes |
||||||
24 | How do I to better stand on His word? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229496 | ||
None of us know all God's promises. The Bible is full of them. As you read the Bible you will discover more and more what God has done for you in fulfilment of His promises. As you come across them rejoice in them and give Him praise and thanks. Don't worry too much about the others. As you come across them it will like finding diamond after diamond. You have a whole lifetime in which to discover them and enjoy them. best wishes |
||||||
25 | How do I to better stand on His word? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229494 | ||
The Bible speaks of the natural man. The natural man is the unsaved man, man without Christ (1 Cor 2.14). Such a man does not have the Spirit of God within Him. But a Christian can be called 'carnal'(fleshly). See 1 Cor 3.3-4, in contrast to spiritual. Being carnal is revealed by behaving in a carnal way (1 Cor 3.3). Just as being spiritual is revealed by behaving in a spiritual way (Gal 5.22). But the reason for the latter is that they behave in that way as a result of walking in the Spirit (Rom 8.4-9). It is best not to speak of a carnal nature, as though a Christian man had two natures. It is rather two tendencies within one nature. He is a man by nature, influenced by both flesh and Spirit. The old man is the man that I once was. The new man is the man that I now am in Christ. I am to put to death the old man so that the new man might live through me (Eph 2.22-24). It is misleading to speak of the old nature. Best wishes |
||||||
26 | How can you explain the SDA faiths? | NT general | biblicalman | 229491 | ||
The word baptizo means 'to drench', and derivatively 'to overwhelm' (looking at both Biblical and secular usage). What a word means is not determined by its root, but by how it is used. (The use of bapto is therefore irrelevant to its meaning). The Pharisees did not wash their hands they drenched them, pouring water over hands and wrists. Paul's use in 1 Cor 10 was metaphorical. The Israelites were not really baptised, thus whether they got wet or not is irrelevant. Paul is using the word as a technical term. Certainly in the UK you will not find any baptists that I know of who suggest that baptism saves. Indeed they could not, otherwise they would not allow a delay in baptism after salvation. I know of no UK baptist church thast insists on baptising people the moment they believe. Most would insist on a course of instruction to ensure that the person knows what they are doing. Salvation occurs through faith in Jesus Christ and His blood shed for us, not through baptism. Baptism is simply a final visible seal indicating outwardly that the person is claiming to have been sealed by the Spirit, baptism in water being important but not vital. The reason Baptists practise immersion is: 1) because they believe that that is how it is portrayed in Scripture. 2) because they believe it better portrays the idea of dying with Christ and rising with Him, which is the main meaning of baptism in Scripture. It is only a sacramentalist who would suggest that it mattered whether every part of the head and body were covered. Few UK baptists are sacramentalists. But of course as immersion means going right under the water it is difficult to see how any part could not be covered by water. Thus if there is absurdity, the absurdity that talks about a part not being covered lies with those who suggest otherwise. (It is a pity that Christians try to point to other Christians as having absurd ideas. Whatever they may be they are rarely if ever absurd. Baptists could say that sacramentalist ideas are absurd, some probably do, but I do not think it right to do so. Such ideas may be wrong, but they are not absurd. We should respect each others views). I write this not in order to promote baptists but in order to correct any fales impressions that may have been gained from what has previously been said. Best wishes. |
||||||
27 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | biblicalman | 229464 | ||
Hi We are accounted as righteous (justified) as a free gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and this as a consequence of our faith in Him (Rom 3.24). This occurs while we are still ungodly (Rom 4.5) and makes us acceptable to God at the moment of truly believing. The fact that He justifies the ungodly demonstrates that this happens at the moment of believing. One moment we are ungodly. The next moment we are accounted as righteous. So once we have believed in Jesus Christ as our Saviour we are no longer counted as ungodly. We are accounted as righteous before Him (Rom 4.3). It is something that happens once for all at the moment of believing. This is because God has set Him forth to be a propitiation (means of turning side God's antipathy to sin) through faith in His shed blood (Rom 3.25). At the same moment we are accounted as holy (sanctified), that is, set apart wholly to God (1 Cor 1.2, 30; 6.11; Heb 13.12; Acts 26.18) and seen as holy in Christ. We are 'sanctified ones' (1 Cor 1.2). Then begins the process of making us holy (2 Cor 3.18). Having sanctified us once for all in Christ the moment that we believe, covering us with His righteousness and holiness, God then begins to sanctify us in reality through the process of sanctification (God has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified - Heb 10.14), a process which continues on through our lifetime. Our Justification and initial sanctification are once for all. Our continuing sanctification commences from that moment and continues on through life as God works within us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil 2.13). And this goes on until we are presented perfect before Him. |
||||||
28 | when will tribulation/rapture occur | Matthew | biblicalman | 229421 | ||
Hi, The question is which days? Commencing with a resume of history Jesus was specifically prophesying about three things: The destruction of the Temple that Jesus was looking at (verse 2-3a; vv 15-22). The second coming of Jesus Christ (verse 3b vv 27-31). The end of the world (verse 3c ch 25.31-46). Now if the Abomination of Desolation (destructive idolatry) does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD it would mean that (according to Matthew) Jesus had not answered the first question at all. And we should note that in fact Mark and Luke concentrate on that question of the destruction of the Temple, (they do not refer to the second coming), and Mark also speaks of the Abomination of Desolation. It would be even more strange if Mark posed only one question and did not answer it. Furthermore paralleling verse by verse with Luke we discover that the Abomination of Desolation refers to armies surrounding Jerusalem followed by the Jews being scattered among the nations until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luk 21.20-24). We shouild note that the 'great tribulation' was also to be initially escaped by fleeing to the mountains suggesting that it was limited to the Jews. Unless we are trying to fit it into some prophetic scheme this great tribulation mentioned here (which is like nothing before or since) is the tribulation that commenced for the Jews when Jerusalem was surrounded and taken with horrendous slaughter and suffering, continued on through the ages in their dispersion (including the Holocaust) as Luke brings out, and is even now being experienced by Jews in many parts of the world. You will note that connected with it is the rising of false Messiahs and false prophets which certainly occurred following the fall of Jerusalem. As to being trodden down by the Gentiles ancient Jerusalem is still occupied by the Arabs, and there are at the present time serious negotiations taking place for it to be taken over by the United Nations. It will be interesting to see what happens. Best wishes |
||||||
29 | What is meant by anointed? | 1 Sam 10:1 | biblicalman | 229361 | ||
To be 'born of water' does not refer to baptism as such. It refers to the new life that springs up through rain. The coming of the Holy Spirit on men is often likened by the prophets to rain. See Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13. it was this experience that Jesus wanted Nicodemus to have. It is in Isaiah 55.10-13, where he speaks of 'bringing to birth' through rain, that the idea of new birth is specifically introduced, which is why Jesus expected Nicodemus to know about it. At this stage, as far as we know, baptisms in water were not being carried out. They ceased when John was put in prison and commenced again after Jesus' resurrection. But cerainly once we have been born of water and the Spirit we should be baptised. But it is the 'baptism in the Spirit' (1 Cor 12.13; Romans 6.3) that saves us. |
||||||
30 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229350 | ||
Hi Tim, The question that I dealt with originally was not what was to be seen as the ideal, but what was actually countenanced and not seen as an open breach of the Law by the majority of people having the consequence of bringing the couple and the baby into disrepute, (apart, as I constantly stated, in the eyes of the high sticklers). We are all agreed that the Old Testament says nothing against sexual relations between a betrothed couple (who were seen as man and wife). Had it been seen as needing to be legislated against, it would have been mentioned, for it would certainly have occurred. And this is especially so in view of the fact that if it was totally forbidden it would have required the death penalty. Had that been so it would hardly have been overlooked. And this is especially so as in betrothal all the ritual requirements for marriage had been completed, and were binding, and all that was required was consummation of the marriage. This in fact is brought out rather vividly by Deuteronomy 20.7 where the husband is to race home to consummate the betrothal. In Ketuboth 1.5 it says, 'He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without a witness cannot bring a complaint for the cause of non-virginity because he was alone with her.' This suggests that this was a fairly common occurrence as it is being legislated about. And there is no indication of disapproval, only a removal of the right of the husband to protest against his wife not being a virgin. We also note that the concern was not seemingly concerning immorality, but concerning the rights of the couple and the security of the marriage. Indeed that is the Old Testament emphasis. The immorality lay in what its social effects were. You say : The point you made in another post about sexual relations resulting in marriage does not indicate acceptance, but protection of the woman. It is much like in the OT where if a man raped a virgin, he had to marry her. The latter is in fact a point I brought out earlier. But the very fact that it is legislated about without any criticism being made demonstrates that it was accepted as not prejudicing the couple. There is never a hint of criticism. It is treated matter-of-factedly. There would be no reflection on the child. But we should note that the Mishnah, when speaking of a betrothal occurring through sexual relations, does not assume that there had been a rape. The sexual relations could equally have been by agreement in order to bring about betrothal. It is merely being seen as one means of entering a betrothal, without further comment being made. And what is important, as I think we are agreed on, (and was the point at issue), is that no taint attached to the child as long as both parties accepted the child as theirs. With regard to the period of twelve months it would appear that that period was only a suggested period and not rigidly applied. Often betrothal would take place when the couple were young children and the period of betrothal would be a lot longer. On other occasions where the couple were mature the period would be less. Of course this situation does not arise for Christians. Engagement is not betrothal. It is not totally binding. Thus for the Christian pre-marital sex is certainly disapproved of. But that is another question. Best wishes |
||||||
31 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229335 | ||
Hi Ed, I don't quite understand your problem. I cited three Jewish sources, as follows, This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a premarital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In no instance is there any hint of disapproval of the sexual relations. Do you not count these as sources? In two I give chapter and verse. Referencing works in general can give an untrue impression. Edersheim does not cite any ancient Jewish preChristian source that disagrees with what I have said about betrothal and marriage. They do not exist. Best wishes |
||||||
32 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229333 | ||
Hi Ed, Let us try and avoid getting heated about this, it really is not worth it. Your sources are not based on 1st century sources (there are none) and they are therefore simply a matter of the opinions of the writers as people who live in the modern era against a background of Christian culture and read back later Jewish tradition which was revolutionised after 70 AD. They are not backed up by facts. I provided you with three sources which confirmed that betrothal could be initiated by sexual activity, but you simply ignored them. Now Tim has brought one of them up you accept it, although in my view you draw wrong conclusions from it. You have no sources which refer to Mikvah applying in 1st century AD, certainly not before the fall of Jerusalem. If you have I would be more than delighted to see them. But I do not believe that any are available, and scholars confirm the fact. So your conclusion does not follow, and furthermore no one is sure when Mikvah applied. Ritual cleanisng was something that was going on all the time, and always necessary after sexual relation. I have already cited Ellison writing in 'A New Testament Commentary'. But I cannot offhand remember which other authorities i found discussion of the subject in, but I can assure you that they were scholarly sources, not just 'popular' sources like the ones you mention. I am very careful where I obtain my information from and what I accept. It is always difficult to trace back background information of this kind because it is rarely provided in substantiated form. You cannot read later Jewish customs back to the time of Jesus, and certainly not to Galilee whose views were very different from those in Judea. Nor am I convinced that Mikvah is anything like our baptism. Mikvah, whenever it began, was a ceremony of ritual cleansing, John's baptism was never said to offer ritual cleansing. It was an indication of the coming of the Holy Spirit in terms of Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13 signifying the giving of life, which would be fulfilled by the coming of the Holy Spirit. Notice that almost all John's preaching was in terms of producing fruit and other agricultural activities. Best wishes |
||||||
33 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229330 | ||
Hi Tim, Thank you for confirming what I said about Halakhic tradition. As it points out that having agreed sexual relations was one way of initiating a betrothal, and appears to accept it as 'normal', I fail to see how anyone can deny that such a situation was 'accepted' as I said, even if not necessarily fully approved of by all. (I made clear it was not fully approved of by all). Thank you too for confirming what I said about the child of such a relationship being accepted as legitimate. Some will still be unwilling to accept it, but when an idea is fixed in the mind it often takes time to be willing to let it go. Best wishes |
||||||
34 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229323 | ||
Ed, As you are aware you have to go to modern books for such a suggestion. It is not Scriptural. Nor is there any proof that such a tradition occurred in the times of Jesus. I am sure you are aware that the idea is taken from Deuteronomy 22.13-21 where it ONLY occurred if the husband made a public charge against his wife to the courts. The bloodstained sheets would then be produced. Thus it would not occur if the husband knew that they had had sexual relations during betrothal. With regard to the stoning, that would not have been allowed by the Romans. As far as we know it was only allowed in exceptional cases for blasphemy. We do not know what punishment would be meted out in such a case as deuteronomy speaks of. As everyone is so keen on quotations, let me quote what H L Ellison (a Jewish Christian consrvative scholar) says, 'He (Jesus) was not conceived until Mary was legally married. Betrothal was legally marriage'. Thus he sees things the way I do. I have already demonstrated that Jewish Halakhic tradition clearly states that the offspring born out of a betrothal situation was NOT seen as illegitimate. In which case there was no shame of fornication. Do you not find it interesting that the Jews never brought that particular matter up either when Jesus was alive nor after He was dead, even when the virgin birth had been publicised? Lol if I know young men and their propensities I am sure that premarital sex during betrothal happened quite frequently. And no one has yet produced a jot of Scripture which says that it was condemned, although I do not doubt that it was frowned on by many. Best wishes. |
||||||
35 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229322 | ||
Searcher, Unless you can provide proof from the Torah and the Prophets that sexual relations between betrothed couple were forbidden your position also has no standing. I have at least demonstrated the probability that it was allowable. Of course the Mishnah is valid as evidence of what the Jews believed, which is the point at issue. We are not arguing about what the Scriptural teaching is. There was no Scriptural teaching on the subject. I find it interesting how people who like to call the Bible the word of God are quite happy to add in things and pretend that they too are the word of God just because it is what they think. I did not 'forget' about the three year and a day old (lol you forgot the day, so whwere do you stand?). I just thought it would raise unnecessary complications and upset some members of the forum. It was unnecessary to the argument. The statement was that women from that age upwards could become betrothed by sexual relations There is nothing in what you wrote that implied sex between betrothed persons was forbidden. But I am quite happy for you not to reply. I think the subject is best left alone. Where Scripture is silent each can form his own views. best wishes |
||||||
36 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229321 | ||
Ed Thank you for your information. No doubt you will provide me with the chapters and verses in Scripture that speak of this situation? Post-1st century Jewish ceremonies tell us nothing about the times of Jesus and before. They developed after the fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore there are those who claim that the Mikvah when it was introduced was performed immediately after the betrothal. Perhaps then you would provide evidence for what you say that excludes that possibility? best wishes. |
||||||
37 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Ex 2:8 | biblicalman | 229320 | ||
Hi Holmes. The term Hebrew was initially used by outsiders of Abraham and his descendants. Genesis 14 was describing a covenant made between Abraham and Melchizedek. This would almost certainly be drawn up by Melchizedek's Chief Scribe. (Note the totally unusual style of chapter 14 in contrasst with the rest of Genesis). Thus he speaks of Abraham as Abraham the Hebrew. Abraham would of course keep a copy of the covenant. Being semi-nomadic and non-Canaanite Abraham's tribe would be seen as similar to the Habiru (Apiru), landless people and without a settled home. It was not used of Isaac or Jacob's family tribes. It was then used by the Egyptians of Joseph in an Egyptian situation, followed by its use by the Egyptians of Israel in Exodus 1-10. It does not then occur until Exodus 21. It occurs in Exodus 21 of a special type of servant in a contract typical of the Habiru, as witnessed at Nuzi (repeated in Deuteronomy). Thus this was dealing with Habiru bondservant contracts. Its next use was by the Philistines of Israel (1 Samuel). Thus its use up to this point was clearly as I said, a use by foreigners of Israel. Saul then took it up as a reaction and taunt against the Philistines. It is not used anywhere in any other contexts. It was next used of Jonah by foreign sailora. By the time of Jeremiah (its final use) Jewish slaves were being described as Habiru, being on typical Habiru contracts. So Hebrew was a title gradually being assimilated to Israel. Best wishes |
||||||
38 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229310 | ||
Just me. I'm afraid what you say about the Quran destroys your case. I gave no incorrect information concerning the Quran. If I did not see your post I am sorry. But if a lot is posted then things tend to be disappear rather quickly. Had you drawn it to my attention I would have looked at it. If you will look back you will discover that what I suggested you consult a Bible Dictionary about is NOT what is now under discussion. Bible Dictionaries tend to concentrate on the standard official view, not the view of the common people. All that I said was getting out of hand was wasting a lot of time and space arguing about a subject of minor importance. Especially as the arguing very often reveals that the person arguing has not really read my posts. What I have said is accurate, And I have substantiated it from Scripture. Nor have I made a mistake. If I had a large theological library available as I once had I could soon trace my sources. But it is hardly a subject that I have kept records of. I did in fact find information on the internet which confirmed my position but did not consider the matter important enough to take the matter further. In fact if you think about it the fact that the Nazarenes who tried to pick holes in Jesus never brought the subject up, even though they would have known the facts, confirms that my view of things is correct. Sexual relations within betrothal were tolerated. Had they not been the Nazarenes would have seized on it to discredit Jesus. To a lesser extent (for they may not have known the facts) the same is true of the Pharisees. I am not prepared to retract a statement which I am confident is right. Best wishes. |
||||||
39 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229307 | ||
Searcher I stopped the generations discussion for the same reason. I felt it had run its course. But of course you fail to point that out. Well I see nothing in the supposed Biblical proof which shows that I was wrong. You have given no proof at all. Indeed you have mainly repeated what I said, avoiding the conclusions. You have mainly given Scriptures that I have already given except that you have misinterpreted them. There is no doubt at all that betrothed persons were called husband and wife. I suggest you read the Scriptures I gave again without prejudice. Fortunately others can judge for themselves. I also pointed out that betrothal was totally different from engagement. I can only presume from what you say that you did not read my recent post where I underlined this. It is indeed largely the basis of my argument. I put no special weight on the Jewish encyclopedia when it comes to the times of Jesus. They have no more information to go on than the scholars whom I consulted, possibly less, for they are of course biased in their own favour and a desire to present Judaism respectably. And they put too much emphasis on later Jewish tradition. Tell me do you believe what the Jewish encyclopedia says about Jesus Christ? No you are mistaken. It was the betrothal that was the means of obtaining a wife, the marriage was just the final seal. That is why Jacob could say 'give me my wife'. He was already betrothed to her and was working off the payment. With regard to the 'proof of virginity' passage that simply demonstrates what ought to have happened, but it only happened in certain cases where it was seen as important. Clearly if the two had had sexual relations the subject would not come up. The man would know his wife was not a virgin. Lol most of what you are pointing out is what I have already said. But you prove nothing from it. At least I then apply it. If they were betrothed they already had a wife and husband. There is never any suggestion of condemnation for the behaviour of such in sexual matters. If you disagree, produce it. On the other hand if they had sexual relations when they were not betrothed, that ensured their betrothal, which is one reason why the Rabbis said that sexual relations was one way of bringing about a betrothal. I fail to see what a wedding procession has to do with what I said. It was simply part of the celebrations which I spoke of. The serious part was accomplished by the betrothaal. I specifically pointed out that they did not 'shack up' Did you read anything I said? I am quite aware of what the Rabbi said in full, but firstly I did not think it the kind of thing that should be stressed on the forum, and secondly it makes not the slightest difference to the argument. The Rabbi was not recommending sex at that age. He was simply defining what in those days was seen as the minimum age at which a sexual relationship was considerd theoretically possible. He was not actually suggesting sex at that age. Again you have misinterpreted. I'm afraid I don't trust most of what is available on the internet. It is rarely written by people who have researched the subject in depth. I place more confidence in people who are acknowledged experts in the field under discussion. And besides those sites are not talking about how the common people viewed things. In fact I think you are not arguing against what I said, but against what YOU THINK I said, because you have not read what I said carefully enough. You have simply jumped to conclusions. |
||||||
40 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229302 | ||
Hi Unfortunately this subject appears to be getting out of hand. At no time did I state that sexual relations were 'common' during the betrothal period, only that they 'regularly occurred', and that the general consensus was that they were permissible. It is all a matter of language. For something to regularly occur among say a million people over many years, does not mean that they were common (depending on what you mean by common), only that they fairly often happened. The question is not whether sexual relations within the betrothal period were approved of by Jewish society as a whole, but whether Jesus' parents would have been deeply frowned on for having had such sexual relations. My first statement was, 'in Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fonication'. This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a pre-marital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). In Israel betrothal was at the very basis of a marriage. It was at betrothal that the contracts were drawn up, payments made, and everything was settled. Apart from a blessing we know of no ritual that took place at the actual wedding. That had taken place at the betrothal. The betrothal was totally binding. The actual wedding was rather a time for feasting and the official consummation of the marriage. All the preliminaries (including the signing) had taken place at betrothal. Once betrothed the pair were looked on as husband and wife (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; 28.30; Judges 14.2, 8; Joel 1.8; Matthew 1.18-20). The only way out was through divorce. They did not, however, live together. But as the betrothed girl was expected to work in the countryside unsupervised (Deut 22.25) they would have ample opportunity to meet, and if they desired engage in love-making. (Consider the Song of Solomon). It is noteworthy that nothing is ever said against such practises in the Old Testament. There is never any suggestion that a betrothed pair be punished in any way if they engaged in such activity, even though the question of sexual relations is dealt with in a detailed way. Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In neither instance is there any hint of disapproval. This is in fact backed up in Scripture in that if a man entices a virgin he must pay her dowry (thus bcoming betrothed) and take her as his wife (Exod. 22.16; compare Deut 22.28-29). Once again there is no punishment unless you see having to be married as a punishment. The couple would not be frowned on later, except by high sticklers, who would no doubt see it as a sign of 'common people'. My own comments were based on what I have learned from scholarly commentaries, but as I cannot offhand remember which ones, and no longer have access to such commenaries, I have provided details above which would support their case. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |