Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
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 | 229289 | ||
Hi Tim, Well we can agree to differ :-)) As I pointed out the high sticklers took your view, (except that the period was not necessarily 12 months, it was agreed by the families), but the general consensus was that sexual relations during betrothal were permissible. Thus Mary would not have been frowned on by her Galilean friends, nor by the majority. It is doubtful therefore whether the Pharisees would have made a fuss about such a thing. You must not judge Jesus' day by later Rabbinic rules. Best wishes |
||||||
2 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | justme | 229308 | ||
Biblicalman: I read Searcher56 note to you. I am very concerened that I asked you twice for your sources and both times you blew me off. The first time you gave incorrect information on the Qur'an. I said to you the Qur'an said something other than what you had reported it said. You asked me to quote you the verses that were not at all what you claimed the Qur'an verses said. You ignored my post back to you. This time you instructed me to look at a "reliable Bible Dictonary". Now you said the has gotten out of hand. You have had Edb, searcher56, and me (justme)give you ample opportunity to explain where your sources came from. I do have a substantial library. I spent a fair amount of time attempting to find even the slightest hint of what you claimed. I found nothing to substantiate even the slightest possibility that during the bethrothal that sexual relations were tollerated in anyway whatsoever, before they lived together. Biblicalman, I bring these issues to your attention in brotherly love. I want your voice in the SBF to be heard, but please be as accurate as possible and if asked for sources to provide it. Otherwise be prepared to retract your statement, and heal the mistake you made. Blessings. justme |
||||||
3 | 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. |
||||||
4 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | EdB | 229312 | ||
Biblicalman You stated there was no real ritual connected with the actual marriage other than blessings being spoken over the couple. Yet many books, Manners and Customs in the Bible, New Manners and Customs of Bible Times, Understanding the Times of Christ, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah all talk of or mention that there was the ritual or custom. That being the showing of the virginal sheet in the morning. That was the white cloth that showed the blood stains of the virgin. Without this both families were shamed. And the lack of such evidence justified immediate annullment of the marriage. And usually the stoning of the Bride. Unless the Husband was willing to live with the shame by admitting he had violated the bride earlier it was a done deed. So I'm at a lost to understand your statement that premartial sex during the betrothal was accepted or common or even often happened. I would like to know what you are basing that on because it is contradictory to what I have been trained. I was aware that if the husband did have relations with his wife before the actual marriage and then married her some schools of teaching or sect of Judaism would accept the marriage but that was far from universal and always carried a shame of fornication. |
||||||
5 | 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. |
||||||
6 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | Morant61 | 229327 | ||
Greetings Biblicalman! You mention Jewish Halakhic tradition. I looked it up, and here is what it says about betrothal and marriage: "The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other. Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete. The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together. In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new family. There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear, leaving the woman in the awkward state of being married but without a husband. Today, the two ceremonies are normally performed together. Because marriage under Jewish law is essentially a private contractual agreement between a man and a woman, it does not require the presence of a rabbi or any other religious official. It is common, however, for rabbis to officiate, partly in imitation of the Christian practice and partly because the presence of a religious or civil official is required under United States civil law. As you can see, it is very easy to make a marriage, so the rabbis instituted severe punishments (usually flogging and compelled divorce) where marriage was undertaken without proper planning and solemnity." Source: http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm It does go on to say that only children of forbidden marriages were considered illegitimate under Jewish Law. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | EdB | 229329 | ||
Tim Interesting information. I find this statement most interesting. "Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband." This seems to suggest that sexual relations could be used to institute a betrothal. Yet every thing I have read up to this point suggests that, that would be a violation of many other Jewish laws and customs. Niddah law would be foremost violated followed by many more. Again I can believe it happened but it was in no way expected or condoned. The other point I find interesting is everything I read the betrothal was bartered by the parents on the behalf of the children. So I would think if premartial sex was involved it would be kept secret until after marriage to save face with eveyone involved. As far as how Judaism viewed the child of such premartial sex from what I read you are right only children of a forbidden marriage was considered illegitimate. If the father accepted the child there was no stigma placed on him or his conception. And I believe this fact answers the question of why the Pharisees did not pursue this with Jesus. Because Joseph accepted Jesus as his own, therfore Jesus by jewish law could not be considered illegitimate. |
||||||