Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 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. |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||