Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | EdB | 229298 | ||
Biblicalman I apologize I should of mentioned who I was addressing my question to and what claim I was speaking of. Biblicalman on what do you base your claim that sexual relations were common in the betrothal process? |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Searcher56 | 229304 | ||
God's day to you, biblicalman, Unlike the generations discussion, you think this "subject appears to be getting out of hand". I have Biblical proof to show you are incorret, as well as a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia and another link. There is a difference between a betrothal/engagement in the Bible ('aras (Hebrew) mnesteuo (Greek)) and engagement of today. An engagement today is an unenforceable promise, while a betrothal is. You are partially right, the two ways out were divorce (Deu 24:1) or her death. But, they were not husband (man) and wife (woman). Deuteronomy 22:24 is the only exception of the verses you cited. The wife is what was wanted ... the betrothal/engagement was the process. If betrothed woman had sex with a man other than her husband, the Bible gives the death penalty. If she consents (does not cry out), both are killed (Deu 22:23-24). If she cries out, only the man dies (vv 25-27). Note that if she is not betrothed, the man is forced to marry her (vv 28-29, Exo 22:16). Yes, sexual intercourse is a way a woman is acquired as a wife. But, were they betrothed/engaged? If he finds out she is not a virgin, and the charges are true, she is stoned to death (vv 13-21). This implies they had no sex before the wedding. The man could put her away (divorce her), if he wanted (Mat 1:19). There was a procession where bridegroom would come inviting friends and family (Gen 29:22; Mat 22:1-10, 25:1-13; Luk 14:8; Jhn 2:2). It was only after the wedding feast that Jacob went into Leah, thinking it was Rachel (Gen 29:22-23). Deuteronomy 20:7 shows that betrothed man lived in his own tent and was not “shacking up”. She was still in her father’s tent (Gen 21:21). Hebrews 13:4 says “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” So those who are betrothed should not have sex, since they are not married. The Mishnah is Pharisaic oral traditions and they twisted the Torah to their wants and whims. Your Rabbi Joseph quote is missing "of the age of 3 years" http://www.angelfire.com/bug/answering/age3.htm ... I hope you disapprove of this. I DO. Search for "betrothal" in http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com Read http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jewish_marriage_customs.htm Searcher |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||
5 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Searcher56 | 229314 | ||
God's day to you, biblicalman, Unless you can prove what you said based on the Torah about betrothed/engaged, you have no standing. The Mishnah is Pharisaic oral tradition and is not valid. I even proved that you forgot about the '3 year old'. When you excluded that - I am concerned. That point is important. Without it, one could think he was talking about someone who could produce children. If you reread the Scripture I cited, you'll see that betrothal sex did not happen, evn could imply it was forbidden. Your weakness is that you refuse to listen/read. As with the generations, I will not waste any more time with you an this matter. You may continue, if you wish, but as with the generations, I will not answer. Searcher |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||