And I'm still trying to figure out how we think Mary was married to Joseph when she became pregnant with Christ. Where did we establish espoused did not mean engaged?
Also why wouldn't the angel go to Joseph and tell him of this wonderful and unique situation involving his soon to be wife. And that would not have taken the responsibility of Mary telling Joseph away either.
Here's a recap of one part of this discussion, with some quotes from me and Larry: <major snip>
WOW!
That exclamatory statement could be misconstrued to imply that your . . . hmm . . . how shall I gently label it? . . . very lengthy resonse -- flabbergasted me. Such is not the case. I'll simply say it left me speechless, which is not to say that nothing comes to mind in response to it. However, the voice of prudence beckons me to say very little on this occasion even though the voice of foolishness is strongly whispering in my other ear. On this occasion, though, the former is much stronger and therefore (feeling rather generous) I will allow you to bask in your moment. I hope you savor it.
And I'm still trying to figure out how we think Mary was married to Joseph when she became pregnant with Christ. Where did we establish espoused did not mean engaged?
Also why wouldn't the angel go to Joseph and tell him of this wonderful and unique situation involving his soon to be wife. And that would not have taken the responsibility of Mary telling Joseph away either.
Chatty, as soon as I recover from my momentary condition of being speechless I'll try to address your questions more fully even though (if I'm not mistaken) I thought I already addressed the first one in a previous post.
And I'm still trying to figure out how we think Mary was married to Joseph when she became pregnant with Christ. Where did we establish espoused did not mean engaged?
Also why wouldn't the angel go to Joseph and tell him of this wonderful and unique situation involving his soon to be wife. And that would not have taken the responsibility of Mary telling Joseph away either.
Chatty,
Larry explains this in great detail in post 92 on the previous page. Espousal was taken very seriously in the Jewish culture of the day, and required a bill of divorcement to end it, not just a returning of a ring and telling a partner that one had changed their mind.
And in Matthew 1:20 an angel does go to Joseph and explain things to him. As far as Mary's responsibility goes, since she was not permitted to speak to Joseph face-to-face during the period of espousal but only through a intermediary, I think her reluctance was totally understandable.
WordWolf, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. If I understand correctly, Larry does not dispute the doctrine of a virgin conception; what he disagrees with is your contention that Mary stayed a virgin until the time of Jesus Christ's birth. I think a case can be made for both positions and that there are some verses that are somewhat unclear. It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'.
Thanks Jeaniam! As I get older I sometimes have trouble remembering what I said five minutes ago let alone two days past. :)
Thanks for your detailed explanation of marriage customs in New Testament times.That was very helpful and answered several questions I had had for some time.
I read most of it and it is interesting. Although I disagree with his final conclusion, because I am still not a trinitarian; much of what he says has value. Thank you for bringing it up.
It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'.
That is a puzzler Jeaniam. The word "knew" is the Greek word ginosko which is as I recall a experiential type of knowledge. I may be stretching it a bit but, the only thing I can come up with is -- the context is about the firstborn son -- Jesus -- and in that vein Joseph didn't "know" Mary fully in regards to bearing children with her -- hence -- experientially -- until after Jesus was born.
WordWolf, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. If I understand correctly, Larry does not dispute the doctrine of a virgin conception; what he disagrees with is your contention that Mary stayed a virgin until the time of Jesus Christ's birth.
I saw that he ALSO contended that. However, his actual POSTS had him disputing a virgin conception
until he posted his own opinion. I can't read his mind- I have to go from his posts.
I doublechecked- it wasn't me who was reading wrong. If he doesn't want misunderstandings,
he should either read more carefully before posting, or post more carefully after reading.
He's an intelligent fellow, and is well able to do this without undue effort.
I think a case can be made for both positions and that there are some verses that are somewhat unclear. It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'.
Thanks for your detailed explanation of marriage customs in New Testament.
The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,
correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion
and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins,
according to one website.
The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth
seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people-
and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw.
Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility?
If so, can you post it or something?
That is a puzzler Jeaniam. The word "knew" is the Greek word ginosko which is as I recall a experiential type of knowledge.
"Euphemism" is one of the 217 figures of speech Bullinger said is in the Bible.
The expression to "know" someone referring to carnal knowledge is not confined to the early chapters of the Gospels.
The expression (in Greek or Hebrew, depending) appears in other places as well.
Feel free to start off on looking at some examples. I'll get to it in turn otherwise.
The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,
correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion
and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins,
according to one website.
The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth
seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people-
and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw.
Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility?
If so, can you post it or something?
Matthew 1:24&25 say--'Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.' The contraversy rests on what exactly is meant by the phrases 'took unto him his wife' and 'knew her not till etc.' VPW claimed that 'took unto him his wife' meant that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary, just not sex that resulted in pregnancy which was the meaning of 'knew her not'. I think VPW's claim is open to question since there are other places that the phrase 'knew her' or in at least one verse 'knew him' was used in a context that didn't result in pregnancy. I refer to the goings-on in Sodom when the men of Sodom wanted the angels brought out to them 'so we may know them'. In that context the word 'know' although still sexual could not possibly result in pregnancy for obvious reasons. So, as I said, I think one can make a case for either explanation, and I am not prepared to say definitely which one is accurate without verses that are more clear.
BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs. Okay, as I was.
BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs. Okay, as I was.
You thought correctly Jeaniam.
On this matter of "knew her not" I think the key word on that subject (as I suggested in my other post) is on the word "firstborn". The word ginosko = knew can have a more fuller meaning than just having sexual intercourse. You hinted at this when you implied that it's not possible to impregnate someone who's already pregnant.
It must be the pull of the rain outside of which I am digging because I am still confused as to how espoused was proven to mean married rather than engaged. From my research into the Hebrew usage it was found to be engaged and yes it did involve more than we modern folks view it as but it was still not married.
Also I understand Mary not being able to go to Joseph due to customs but God provided 'out of the box' situations all throughout the overseeing of his seed being born so I don't hold to the 'letter of the law' in regards to this.
As to if Joseph knew (had sex) with Mary prior to Christ's birth I was only implying perhaps in light of the fact it was NOT Joseph's child and the importance of who it was they might have chosen not to have sex until after he was born. But that is all my thinking.
Mary was no longer a virgin once she 'knew' Joseph.
As to if Joseph knew (had sex) with Mary prior to Christ's birth I was only implying perhaps in light of the fact it was NOT Joseph's child and the importance of who it was they might have chosen not to have sex until after he was born. But that is all my thinking.
Another thing of "importance" to consider is how important it was (culturally) to have children. Especially male offspring. I can imagine how concerned Joseph might have been to know that his wife was bearing a male child not from his own loins. If they never had any more children his blood-line would not carry on in future generations. To them -- that was a BIG deal.
Understand, yet see nothing contradictory about Christ being who he was and how he came about there.
And I go back to how big of a deal bearing Christ would be. That would have trumped Josephs concern over cultural issues in a second. Also God in his foreknowledge knew who Mary would become married to so He knew Joseph would be the right man also.
Nothing thus far has proven it was not Christ's seed and it was not a virgin conception.
(I really wish this system would allow a new post to be a new post)
Understand, yet see nothing contradictory about Christ being who he was and how he came about there.
And I go back to how big of a deal bearing Christ would be. That would have trumped Josephs concern over cultural issues in a second. Also God in his foreknowledge knew who Mary would become married to so He knew Joseph would be the right man also.
I think Joseph's concerns were soothed once he received the visit from the Angel. And I think you're right about God knowing Joseph would be the right man to help raise Jesus. Both Mary and Joseph were "righteous" in God's eyes.
In case I'm not being clear let me simply state that I believe Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse before Jesus was born. What I'm trying to get across (with my other thoughts) is that the emphasis I see in verse 25 with the use of the word "firstborn" is that although Mary bore children for Joseph -- this firstborn -- Jesus -- was not one of them.
Understand, yet see nothing contradictory about Christ being who he was and how he came about there.
And I go back to how big of a deal bearing Christ would be. That would have trumped Josephs concern over cultural issues in a second. Also God in his foreknowledge knew who Mary would become married to so He knew Joseph would be the right man also.
Nothing thus far has proven it was not Christ's seed and it was not a virgin conception.
(I really wish this system would allow a new post to be a new post)
'Christ's seed'? Can I ask you what you mean by that? I think almost everyone is prepared to concede it was a virgin conception. It seems to be open to doubt when Joseph and Mary first had sexual relations and I think that although the Bible is clear that that didn't happen until it was clear that Mary was already pregnant to avoid confusion about who actually was Christ's Father it doesn't make it 100% clear whether it happened before or after Christ's birth. I find merit in your argument that bearing Christ was such a big deal that they were probably willing to make a few personal sacrifices for it.
It seems to be open to doubt when Joseph and Mary first had sexual relations and I think that although the Bible is clear that that didn't happen until it was clear that Mary was already pregnant to avoid confusion about who actually was Christ's Father it doesn't make it 100% clear whether it happened before or after Christ's birth.
Jeaniam allow me to re-quote a snippet from a previous post regarding the customs of the time.
8. At the end of the celebrations a special canopy was set up in the groom’s chamber and both bride and groom were carried to the nuptial canopy. The friends went home and the marriage was finally consummated. Until the consummation, the bride was always heavily veiled.
It may not be 100% clear but if Joseph and Mary were in their separation period during the time of the Angel's visit to Joseph and he was admonished not to fear to "take unto himself Mary his wife" then it's very possible that it's referring to this section in the marriage customs. Meaning the period where they actually consummate their marriage.
So, Larry gave a source. However, there's no way to confirm that source was ACCURATE,
since there's no documentation, thus no way to confirm it's based on correct information.
I know you're both ready and willing to accept what both sources said, but even if I was,
that STILL doesn't mean what we WANT to believe is CORRECT.
Furthermore, he's relying on them more in further posts now. That's not how proper intelligent
discussion goes, as I'm sure you both can see.
WordWolf, there is a limit to my patience. I would suggest you stop while you're ahead. If "winning" this debate is what you want then -- I declare you the winner!
WordWolf, there is a limit to my patience. I would suggest you stop while you're ahead. If "winning" this debate is what you want then -- I declare you the winner!
Not at all.
You're intelligent enough and educated enough to be held to a reasonably high standard.
(No higher than I hold myself to.)
I asked for OTHER sources, sources that WERE traceable.
If your beliefs are correct- they might be, they might not be, but they are UNTESTED-
then there SHOULD be better sources.
I expect you'd prefer to know when your sources need improvement, and when to seek
out better sources.
I don't quote Gilligan's Island when I can quote FF Bruce's "the Scrolls and the Parchments",
and I expect you'd do the same.
Wouldn't you warn me if my sources needed improvement?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
38
36
42
61
Popular Days
Jun 7
37
Jun 2
34
Jun 8
33
Jun 3
32
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 38 posts
WordWolf 36 posts
another spot 42 posts
Larry N Moore 61 posts
Popular Days
Jun 7 2007
37 posts
Jun 2 2007
34 posts
Jun 8 2007
33 posts
Jun 3 2007
32 posts
Posted Images
ChattyKathy
Thank you Larry.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And I'm still trying to figure out how we think Mary was married to Joseph when she became pregnant with Christ. Where did we establish espoused did not mean engaged?
Also why wouldn't the angel go to Joseph and tell him of this wonderful and unique situation involving his soon to be wife. And that would not have taken the responsibility of Mary telling Joseph away either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
WOW!
That exclamatory statement could be misconstrued to imply that your . . . hmm . . . how shall I gently label it? . . . very lengthy resonse -- flabbergasted me. Such is not the case. I'll simply say it left me speechless, which is not to say that nothing comes to mind in response to it. However, the voice of prudence beckons me to say very little on this occasion even though the voice of foolishness is strongly whispering in my other ear. On this occasion, though, the former is much stronger and therefore (feeling rather generous) I will allow you to bask in your moment. I hope you savor it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Chatty, as soon as I recover from my momentary condition of being speechless I'll try to address your questions more fully even though (if I'm not mistaken) I thought I already addressed the first one in a previous post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I must have missed it and thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Chatty,
Larry explains this in great detail in post 92 on the previous page. Espousal was taken very seriously in the Jewish culture of the day, and required a bill of divorcement to end it, not just a returning of a ring and telling a partner that one had changed their mind.
And in Matthew 1:20 an angel does go to Joseph and explain things to him. As far as Mary's responsibility goes, since she was not permitted to speak to Joseph face-to-face during the period of espousal but only through a intermediary, I think her reluctance was totally understandable.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Thanks Jeaniam! As I get older I sometimes have trouble remembering what I said five minutes ago let alone two days past. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
WordWolf, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. If I understand correctly, Larry does not dispute the doctrine of a virgin conception; what he disagrees with is your contention that Mary stayed a virgin until the time of Jesus Christ's birth. I think a case can be made for both positions and that there are some verses that are somewhat unclear. It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'.
Thanks for your detailed explanation of marriage customs in New Testament times.That was very helpful and answered several questions I had had for some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I read most of it and it is interesting. Although I disagree with his final conclusion, because I am still not a trinitarian; much of what he says has value. Thank you for bringing it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That is a puzzler Jeaniam. The word "knew" is the Greek word ginosko which is as I recall a experiential type of knowledge. I may be stretching it a bit but, the only thing I can come up with is -- the context is about the firstborn son -- Jesus -- and in that vein Joseph didn't "know" Mary fully in regards to bearing children with her -- hence -- experientially -- until after Jesus was born.
I hope that made some sense to you.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You win the white carnation!
If you feel like making a new thread on this at some point, there's something I taught on healing a long
time ago that I'll want to find again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I saw that he ALSO contended that. However, his actual POSTS had him disputing a virgin conception
until he posted his own opinion. I can't read his mind- I have to go from his posts.
I doublechecked- it wasn't me who was reading wrong. If he doesn't want misunderstandings,
he should either read more carefully before posting, or post more carefully after reading.
He's an intelligent fellow, and is well able to do this without undue effort.
The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion
and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins,
according to one website.
The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth
seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people-
and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw.
Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility?
If so, can you post it or something?
"Euphemism" is one of the 217 figures of speech Bullinger said is in the Bible.
The expression to "know" someone referring to carnal knowledge is not confined to the early chapters of the Gospels.
The expression (in Greek or Hebrew, depending) appears in other places as well.
Feel free to start off on looking at some examples. I'll get to it in turn otherwise.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Matthew 1:24&25 say--'Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.' The contraversy rests on what exactly is meant by the phrases 'took unto him his wife' and 'knew her not till etc.' VPW claimed that 'took unto him his wife' meant that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary, just not sex that resulted in pregnancy which was the meaning of 'knew her not'. I think VPW's claim is open to question since there are other places that the phrase 'knew her' or in at least one verse 'knew him' was used in a context that didn't result in pregnancy. I refer to the goings-on in Sodom when the men of Sodom wanted the angels brought out to them 'so we may know them'. In that context the word 'know' although still sexual could not possibly result in pregnancy for obvious reasons. So, as I said, I think one can make a case for either explanation, and I am not prepared to say definitely which one is accurate without verses that are more clear.
BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs. Okay, as I was.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You thought correctly Jeaniam.
On this matter of "knew her not" I think the key word on that subject (as I suggested in my other post) is on the word "firstborn". The word ginosko = knew can have a more fuller meaning than just having sexual intercourse. You hinted at this when you implied that it's not possible to impregnate someone who's already pregnant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
It must be the pull of the rain outside of which I am digging because I am still confused as to how espoused was proven to mean married rather than engaged. From my research into the Hebrew usage it was found to be engaged and yes it did involve more than we modern folks view it as but it was still not married.
Also I understand Mary not being able to go to Joseph due to customs but God provided 'out of the box' situations all throughout the overseeing of his seed being born so I don't hold to the 'letter of the law' in regards to this.
As to if Joseph knew (had sex) with Mary prior to Christ's birth I was only implying perhaps in light of the fact it was NOT Joseph's child and the importance of who it was they might have chosen not to have sex until after he was born. But that is all my thinking.
Mary was no longer a virgin once she 'knew' Joseph.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Another thing of "importance" to consider is how important it was (culturally) to have children. Especially male offspring. I can imagine how concerned Joseph might have been to know that his wife was bearing a male child not from his own loins. If they never had any more children his blood-line would not carry on in future generations. To them -- that was a BIG deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Understand, yet see nothing contradictory about Christ being who he was and how he came about there.
And I go back to how big of a deal bearing Christ would be. That would have trumped Josephs concern over cultural issues in a second. Also God in his foreknowledge knew who Mary would become married to so He knew Joseph would be the right man also.
Nothing thus far has proven it was not Christ's seed and it was not a virgin conception.
(I really wish this system would allow a new post to be a new post)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I think Joseph's concerns were soothed once he received the visit from the Angel. And I think you're right about God knowing Joseph would be the right man to help raise Jesus. Both Mary and Joseph were "righteous" in God's eyes.
In case I'm not being clear let me simply state that I believe Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse before Jesus was born. What I'm trying to get across (with my other thoughts) is that the emphasis I see in verse 25 with the use of the word "firstborn" is that although Mary bore children for Joseph -- this firstborn -- Jesus -- was not one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Then I think we must agree. :)
I'm away for a few if you respond again okay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
'Christ's seed'? Can I ask you what you mean by that? I think almost everyone is prepared to concede it was a virgin conception. It seems to be open to doubt when Joseph and Mary first had sexual relations and I think that although the Bible is clear that that didn't happen until it was clear that Mary was already pregnant to avoid confusion about who actually was Christ's Father it doesn't make it 100% clear whether it happened before or after Christ's birth. I find merit in your argument that bearing Christ was such a big deal that they were probably willing to make a few personal sacrifices for it.
Good post, thanks.
(I'm still trying to figure out this system).
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Jeaniam allow me to re-quote a snippet from a previous post regarding the customs of the time.
It may not be 100% clear but if Joseph and Mary were in their separation period during the time of the Angel's visit to Joseph and he was admonished not to fear to "take unto himself Mary his wife" then it's very possible that it's referring to this section in the marriage customs. Meaning the period where they actually consummate their marriage.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Oops...I meant that to say God's seed.
And thanks Jeaniam for your reply.
I have got to stop sitting on a post before I hit post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Jean:
"BTW, I thought Larry gave a source for the marriage customs."
Larry:
"You thought correctly Jeaniam."
You both missed my objection. I shall give an unrelated example, and explain its relevance to my post.
One episode of Gilligan's Island had the Professor explain something.
"Cuneiform, which is the oldest form of writing, was invented by the Assyrians.
But I read it as though it were Boustrophedon, you see?"
"Basically, all ancient languages read from right to left, but I read from left to right."
In other words, according to this source,
The Assyrians invented Cuneiform,
and Boustrophedon reads from left to right.
Both are incorrect.
The Sumerians are taken to have invented Cuneiform, and Boustrophedon changes direction from line
to line in how it's read.
So, someone claiming either- and citing that episode as a source- is giving a source.
However, that changes little because it is not a DOCUMENTABLE source.
You know where they heard it, but not what THAT statement is based on.
Going back to my statement, I said
"The thing is- you're both taking it as a "leap of faith" that those ARE the marriage customs,
correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion
and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins,
according to one website.
The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth
seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people-
and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw.
Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility?
If so, can you post it or something?"
His sources were where the UNSOURCED STATEMENTS I mentioned were posted.
Scroll down the pages- there are NO SOURCES given for their content.
They may be based on nothing more than hearsay.
One can't look up their sources and compare them.
Wikipedia articles aren't taken as serious research pieces- and they generally are not.
However, if an article fails to cite its sources, then someone slaps a sign on it warning the reader
that there's no sources cited-which may mean the content is made-up or otherwise unreliable.
That's also why I mentioned the Sheboygan Redskins thing- someone could cite that other
website as a "source"- but that source was unreliable and thus had incorrect information
based on incomplete research.
So, Larry gave a source. However, there's no way to confirm that source was ACCURATE,
since there's no documentation, thus no way to confirm it's based on correct information.
I know you're both ready and willing to accept what both sources said, but even if I was,
that STILL doesn't mean what we WANT to believe is CORRECT.
Furthermore, he's relying on them more in further posts now. That's not how proper intelligent
discussion goes, as I'm sure you both can see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
WordWolf, there is a limit to my patience. I would suggest you stop while you're ahead. If "winning" this debate is what you want then -- I declare you the winner!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Not at all.
You're intelligent enough and educated enough to be held to a reasonably high standard.
(No higher than I hold myself to.)
I asked for OTHER sources, sources that WERE traceable.
If your beliefs are correct- they might be, they might not be, but they are UNTESTED-
then there SHOULD be better sources.
I expect you'd prefer to know when your sources need improvement, and when to seek
out better sources.
I don't quote Gilligan's Island when I can quote FF Bruce's "the Scrolls and the Parchments",
and I expect you'd do the same.
Wouldn't you warn me if my sources needed improvement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.