Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 229328 | ||
I listed my sources of information and you basically disregarded them or ignored them but you haven't provided your sources of information. All my sources reference Jewish culture and life at the time of Jesus or before not just the 1st century as you suggest. I understand man and his propensities and I can well imagine some did not wait until the formal marriage, however that does not change the fact that betrothal from everything I study did not give them free rein. In fact just the opposite a man that really loved his betrothed wife would do everything to preserve her and his good name. I would enjoy examining your sources so please make them known so I can continue in this study. I have to admit I have been totally enthralled with my study of Mikvah and the similarities to our Baptism. I spent the whole day in research and study and have many more resources to yet review. I would like to study your sources. |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | EdB | 229334 | ||
No heat but I missed where you cite your references. I reread the thread and your posts in particular and I saw you mentioned a Bible dictionary, Ellisons A New Testament Commentary, and you mention Jewish Halakhic tradition but gave no reference to where you verified that information. I on the other hand listed my references and while three of them do not cite direct references from before the First Century church the reference material they used does in fact in many case cite reference material from before that period. In case of Edershem's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah he references many works dated older than the first century. So again no heat I would just like to know exactly what material you based your comments on. Name of work, publisher and volume number if applicable and page number would be great. I'm not trying to put you on the spot but since the door for this study is open I would like to avail myself of as much information as possible. |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | EdB | 229336 | ||
Okay I understand what you are saying now. You are referencing currently available copies of the Halakah and the Mishnah. And you are right as Tim also pointed out sexual relations would start or institute a betrothal. However that was more of, “we got a situation and something needs to be done,” type of thing. It certainly does not give the normal betrothed couple a pass on premarital sex. Now backing up the original question that started this thread the correct and finite answer would be in Jewish society if the father or in the case of Jesus his step father Joseph, having publicly accepted the child as his own the stigma or question of illegitimacy would never be thought of. |
||||||