Has anyone yet addressed this one small angle I noticed, and posted?
It’s the angle of Dr’s admitted uncertainty on PFAL page 57.
Below is a collection together of four originally scattered paragraphs in my posts on this thread. I’ve collected them for repostation here, so that this issue of the uncertainty angle isn’t lost in the blizzard.
Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused.
He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue.
Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..."
He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since LOST I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..."
On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion .....(which. often. well. characterizes. behind-the-scenes. academia)........ God gave him a revelation.
On p. 57 Wierwille says that for years he "WAS NOT" able to understand that section of scripture. BUT, prior to that, on p. 56, he says with NO uncertainty at all that "...the community would not hear enough to believe because they did not think He could know anything SINCE HE WAS ILLEGITIMATE..."
There is a major problem with that statement, because as we see from scripture, the prevailing assumption among those who knew Jesus was that he was Joseph's son. This is the Bible's explicit teaching in at least two places. So they specifically believed him to be the son of a married couple, and thus, they did not believe him to be illegitimate.
But let's continue with the original point, where Wierwille expressed what you call "uncertainty."
The fact that Wierwille writes on p. 57 that for years he "WAS NOT" able to understand that verse indicates that he now is claiming to understand it. He uses the past tense (I WAS NOT able to understand) rather than the present (I have not been or still cannot understand).
Further, he goes through this bar-mitzvah explanation which is both anachronistic and highly speculative. "An old piece of literature" that 40 years of research failed to reproduce cannot be relied upon, as we do not even know who wrote it.
And then at the end of page 57 he writes WITH NO UNCERTAINTY AT ALL that "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown."
That means he is NO LONGER calling himself uncertain on this matter. He doesn't write "This MAY explain..." He writes, "This explains..." indicating certainty.
Now, your claim that he has received revelation here is interesting, but it is not a claim that Wierwille is making. You say he received revelation on this matter, but where does Wierwille say that? All he says is, I used to be uncertain about this. Now, based SOLELY on this old piece of literature that I can't or won't reproduce for you to verify independently, I am no longer uncertain. The reason they could not believe is that they thought Jesus was illegitimate."
Well, they didn't think he was illegitimate. The Bible states clearly, TWICE, that Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph. Joseph was Mary's husband. The child of married parents is not considered illegitimate in the Bible, even if the conception took place before the marriage.
So either the Bible was wrong, or Wierwille was wrong. I know what you're thinking: The Bible must be wrong.
Ok, thanks. I'm glad you gave that angle some consideration.
I have to admit I'm not following all this, but it's just a general principle to often go back to the beginning for reference, so I thought I’d suggest it. Lots of ACs clear up that way, by closely examining those originating details.
I just wanted to bring attention again back to what is actually printed, before bowing out. I'm way over budget in my consideration of this particular PFAL AC, so that's why I'm not trying too hard.
There's one particular Bible AC that nearly everyone has had lots of experience in bowing out of.
And by "bowing out" of a Bible AC or a PFAL AC I mean a procedure that is of utmost importance, to get it right. Getting one's withdrawal sequence mapped out beforehand is crucial in avoiding what is a common AC fate: becoming bogged down.
To avoid becoming "bogged down" there's one particular Bible AC that nearly everyone backs off and says: "I have to admit I'm not following all this"
The Bible AC I'm thinking of is radio carbon dating of manuscripts, shrouds, bones, etc.
I know this is not exactly a Bible AC as defined, but it’s similar.
I study physics, and I know how important it is for me to avoid becoming bogged down in that particular endless labyrinth. I'd never finish tracking down all the details, and so I back off chasing down ANY the physics of dating ancient materials. I'm not interested in BASING my life on that kind of foundation.
By backing off the distraction, the huge chunks of time that radio carbon dating (and other such tests) require of the serious student, there’s all the more time to come back and to enjoy reading the Word of God as it’s been delivered to us.
If you say something I'll respond to it. Once again, you didn't say anything.
If you want to start an actual errors in the Bible thread, go ahead. But I keep seeing in you a willingness to tear down the Bible in order to save the reputation of yourrrrr preciousssss PFAL.
We are using the terms "illegitimate" and "bastard" in a sense that may not be biblical. As you noted, all folks are "legitimate" but acccording Deuteronomy "bastards" are not allowed in the Temple. Clearly this not the case with Jesus. Jesus was not considered a bastard in the biblical sense and was therefore *legitimate* according to the law. He had to be.
So, is the real question is whether the Pharisees thought Jesus was "legitimate", or whether the Pharisees or anyone else believed that he was "born of fornication"?
In Luke 1:36 Gabriel tells Mary, "thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived..." - "Also", implying that Mary had indeed conceived before she left to visit her cousin Elisabeth for three months after which she returned to Nazareth.
Then some time later, in Luke 2:4-5, Mary is "great with child" yet the record says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". As I understand it according to Jewish tradition, a man and his espoused wife have not yet consumated the marriage. It is also forbidden for a esposued couple to have sex until after the marriage ceremony.
According to the Matthew Henry Study Bible:
quote:"Mary had been promised in marriage to Joseph, but the wedding had not yet taken place. In NT times, betrothal was a form of engagement (but more binding than engagement today) and it could be broken only by divorce. Although a couple did not live together until the marriage ceremony, unfaithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punishable by death...?
"Espoused: Not completely married, but contracted (engaged, betrothed, pledged, to be married: nevertheless,. sexual relations were strictly forbidden until marriage. Ed. Note: Jewish betrothal was a much more binding relationship than modern engagement; it could be broken only by a formal divorce" (Matthew Henry Study Bible, Note on Matthew 1:18).
Jesus was presumed to be born of a union between Joseph and Mary. When was this union then presumed to have taken place? I suggest that it likely that the Pharisees as well as others who knew them, presumed that union took place while Joseph and Mary were espoused and not yet officially married - according to the source above, an act that was strictly forbidden. Might this presumed act have been called "fornication" by the Pharisees in John 8:41?
Rafael Posted.
quote:If Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph, as this verse CLEARLY STATES, then he was not presumed to be illegitimate.
Yes, but only assuming that you mean legitimate according to Biblical laws and terms. He may have been presumed to have been "born of fornication" or whatever they called the call the "sin" of an esposed/betrothed couple having sex before the official marriage.
The presumption of Joseph having been Jesus' biological father is irrelevant to Jesus so-called legitimacy. According to Luke, they were still only "espoused" when Mary was "great with child". I see no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Mary and Joseph were anything other than espoused at the time of Jesus' birth.
What ramifications this may have had in biblical times is uinclear - it may have meant little. But in modern times in certain strict areas, it may have been considered a big deal.
This may be a case where confusion is caused by mixing biblical and modern terms modern, or by attempting to correlate biblical situations in modern terms according to modern ideas.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 19, 2003 at 22:08.]
One thing that I've thought about is that no one neccessarily had to know about Mary's pregnancy, other than Joseph. And I'm pretty certain it's not something that would be announced to the neighbors or whoever. Suppose Joseph just kept it to himself, and they went through the marriage (coming together) ceremony as planned, just didn't consummate the marriage. I'm thinking Joseph might've even found out on their honeymoon night. In those days, long, loose flowing clothing was the norm. Even today, it's not that hard to hide a pregnancy if you really want to, especially with a first baby.
Joseph and Mary evidently left for Bethlehem to do their required thing for the census shortly before Mary's due date. Why? Surely there was a sufficient time frame involved, and they didn't HAVE to go right when they did. (Shoot, even we've got til April 15th to pay our taxes for the previous year.) Nobody I know plans a difficult trip when they're about to give birth. It's much easier to travel with a newborn than it is being "great with child." Trust me on this. ;)-->
Could it be that Joseph and Mary purposely planned their obliged trip to Bethlehem when they did so Mary wouldn't be home when the baby was born? Even nowadays, people hide pregnancies and then leave town to give birth so the neighbors won't know. Another intriguing thing to me is the fact that the couple stayed in Bethlehem and didn't return immediately to Nazareth. I think that's pretty clear from the record. (The Magi finding a young child in a house.) In Matthew 2:19ff, it's clear that they settled in Nazareth again after leaving Egypt upon Herod's death. As I mentioned before, years could have passed from the time Joseph and Mary left for Bethlehem and then finally made it back to Nazareth. Who knows, they could even have had another child/children by then. Would anyone really be the wiser about the circumstances of Jesus birth? LongGone made a good point that Joseph didn't divorce her, so perhaps everyone assumed all was well.
I'm telling ya, if the things that happened to Mary and Joseph happened to me, I would most definitely keep it to myself.
This is just one scenario I know, and I'm definitely filling in the blanks, but so far it makes the most sense to me.
Thanks for your insight. It's really been enjoyable for me reading everybody elses thoughts on the subject.
Did you read my post thoroughly (or is that throughy?) ;)-->
quote:One thing that I've thought about is that no one neccessarily had to know about Mary's pregnancy, other than Joseph. And I'm pretty certain it's not something that would be announced to the neighbors or whoever. Suppose Joseph just kept it to himself, and they went through the marriage (coming together) ceremony as planned. I'm thinking Joseph might've even found out on their honeymoon night. In those days, long, loose flowing clothing was the norm. Even today, it's not that hard to hide a pregnancy if you really want to, especially with a first baby.
How then do you handle Luke 2:4-5 where Mary is great with child, yet it says clearly says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". There is no record of a comming together ceremony or a honeymoon night. Also, it pretty clear from Luke 1:42 - ? that Elisabeth also knew of Mary's conception. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph lied or were intentionally deceptive to family and friends about this devine conception? After both had been visited by an angel of God? Why would they do that ?
quote:Could it be that Joseph and Mary purposely planned their obliged trip to Bethlehem when they did so Mary wouldn't be home when the baby was born? Even nowadays, people hide pregnancies and then leave town to give birth so the neighbors won't know.
Try a few commentaries. Of those I have read, none have made this kind of specuation. What folks believe and practice today in the US bears little on what folk did in Jewish culture in those days. As for me, I kind of doubt that Joseph and Mary were too concerned about the neighbors at this point.
quote:Another intriguing thing to me is the fact that the couple stayed in Bethlehem and didn't return immediately to Nazareth. I think that's pretty clear from the record. (The Magi finding a young child in a house.)
It seems they may have stayed for the "days of purification which" according to Leviticus 12 would have been 40 days after the birth of the child. Everything was done strircly according to the Law.
The Magi finding them in a house indicates that they moved out of the stable which was only temporary. They would have been in a "house" (okia) already if there had been room elsewhere. The arriving of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem coincides with the Feast of Tabernacles( according to many), which all the men of Israel were required attend. Bethlehem is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem so every room for miles around Jerusalem would have been already taken up. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts 8 days, so after this there would be have been room available elsewhere.
Ex10, what you are saying here is all based on the presumption that Mary and Joseph were somehow inclined to conceal Mary's pregnancy - That they were ashamed or so concerned about about what the neighbors thought, that they would leave town and be deceptive to friend and family to hide Mary's conception and pregnancy. I see no real evidence to suggest that at all. What you think you may have felt or done in Mary's situation bears little on what Mary & Joseph may have felt or done. Mary was a Jewess who had been chosen by God to give birth to His Messiah. These folks lived in another time and in a completely different culture and very likely did not think like us Texans. :)-->
Jesus was presumed to be born of a union between Joseph and Mary. When was this union then presumed to have taken place? I suggest that it likely that the Pharisees as well as others who knew them, presumed that union took place while Joseph and Mary were espoused and not yet officially married - according to the source above, an act that was strictly forbidden. Might this presumed act have been called "fornication" by the Pharisees in John 8:41?
Yes, it might. If the comment was directed at Jesus and not as a self-defense comment (and the weight of evidence, in my opinion, favors the self-defense interpretation), then they could be making an allegation that Joseph and Mary got together before they were supposed to.
The problem is, I can't find any Biblical evidence of any stigma attached to a child conceived under such circumstances. Deuteronomy 22 states that the remedy for fornication is marriage (end of the chapter). It doesn't even raise the possibility of a child being conceived as a result of the premature union, indicating that it's simply not an issue.
So even assuming the verse in John 8 is a reference to the conception of Christ (a point I am finding more and more difficult to concede as I consider these records), it still does nothing to substantiate the claim that there was a stigma attached to Jesus because of it. "Your parents sinned and corrected themselves" is hardly an insult.
The evidence of stigma attached to Jesus by the community because of the circumstances surrounding his conception gets weaker and weaker the closer we look at scripture. Even presuming the worst, taking all the Biblical evidence into consideration, he was accused of being the son of parents who were betrothed and couldn't wait to get at each other. This is a FAR cry from "illegitimate," and there's nothing in the Bible or in Jewish culture to indicate that there's a stigma attached to the child in such circumstances.
Of course, there's that old piece of literature God told Wierwille to trust...
I did read your post. I'm simply offering another perspective, which I thought I made clear was just my speculation.
And to answer your question, I am not implying that Mary would hide her pregnancy due to shame. I'm just saying that this was a unique circumstance, that had never occurred before. If Joseph was anything like my husband, I think he would definitely be into protecting his wife, her honor and reputation, especially since she was carrying the long awaited for Messiah. The wise thing to do in this instance, might be to just keep quiet about it. That's all I'm saying. After all, Herod was the king, he had a bad rep for being brutal and ruthless, and when he found out from the Magi that the messiah had been born, he didn't seem to waste any time trying to murder him. Sheesh, all through the OT the devil was trying to annihilate the Christ line. I would definitely say that Mary and Joseph needed to be very wise in this situation.
I've been pregnant quite a few times in my life. And yeah, a couple of those pregnancies were quite a surprise. :)--> Even if Mary wasn't a Texan, she was a female. I think I can relate on that level. Any normal female who is about to give birth, especially to a first child when you really don't know what to expect, is vitally concerned with preparing for the birth. It's an obsession almost. I just can't see planning a trip, on foot no less (OK she's riding a donkey in all the pictures, that's even worse than walking I'd say. ;)--> )
I don't know enough about the espousal/marriage thing to answer your question about that. Maybe I'll have time do some reading on it, maybe not. But I feel pretty confident that I have a little understanding of the subject we're talking about. If you disagree, that's fine.
I'm simply offering a scenario that may or may not make sense. If it doesn't to you, ok. I'm not trying to challenge you or anything, just voicing my opinion.
[This message was edited by ex10 on January 19, 2003 at 23:08.]
quote:So even assuming the verse in John 8 is a reference to the conception of Christ (a point I am finding more and more difficult to concede as I consider these records), it still does nothing to substantiate the claim that there was a stigma attached to Jesus because of it. "Your parents sinned and corrected themselves" is hardly an insult.
Question: If the fornication comment in John 8 was not directed at Jesus in some way, then where did it come from? Why did they even bring up fornication? The context in John 8:42 is clearly parentage or "Who's your daddy!"
I do agree thgough that there is no evidence of any stigma associated with the presumed sin of Joseph and Mary. But it seems to me that these Pharisees may have been grasping at straws to discredit Jesus, and that this fornication comment was probably the best they could come up with. - to bring up his parents presumed past indescretion.
BTW, the Pharisees did not add or imply the "corrected themselves" part - you did. It would be like someone bringing up the past sin of another, even though the person had apologized and repented of it and changed his ways. The one bringing it up is not concerned with whether or not the person has changed or repented - they just use the past as a weapon to discredit whenever convenient. Happens all the time. You should meet my ex-wife.
In the NIV John 8:41 reads: "We are not illigitimate children," they protested. The only Father we had is God himself."
I think the NIV translation is easier to understand than the KJV. Jesus was saying that he was the Son of the Father. He claimed to be speaking on his father's behalf. He was accusing the Pharisees of "belonging to your father, the devil...." vs.44. They were saying that they were the pure line of Abraham, which equated them with being the children of God. They were simply protesting the truth of Jesus' words to them. And I think, trying to discredit him and the same time because as I mentioned before in verse 48 they accused him of being a Samaritian. The Jews despised the Samaritans because they considered them half-breeds, NOT the children of Abraham like they were.
It seems really simple to me. I don't think they were referring to Jesus' actual parents at all. There's just no evidence to support that they were, especially reading the context. The whole argument was about who was from God and who wasn't.
The "we be not born of fornication" was a self-defense comment from the Pharisees, not an accusatory one.
If I were to say, "Wait just a second there, I'm no illegal alien." That doesn't mean I'm accusing you of being one.
As for the stigma to the child being relevant, it goes back to the purpose of this discussion: Jesus was supposedly bar mitzvahed a year earlier than other boys BECAUSE HE WAS CONSIDERED ILLEGITIMATE. The more we examine all the related verses, the clearer it becomes that Wierwille's statement on this subject is NOT TRUE. IE, FALSE. IE, WRONG. If there's no stigma attached to the child in cases where the parents got together before they were supposed to (and there's NOTHING in the Bible or culture to suggest that there was), then Wierwille was wrong.
That's a thesis statement. I'm open to a presentation of evidence to the contrary. Unsubstantiated old pieces of literature need not apply.
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
While this may be easier to understand from a language point of view, the translators took great liberty in interpreting the phrase "born of fornication" to mean "illegitimate children". - It assumes way too much. "Born of fornication" (gk. ek porneias ouk egenn??n) does not directy correlate to "illegitimate children". The words used in the text do however directly correlate to "born of fornication. The NIV can bite you if you are not careful.
It is clear that VPW was in error concerning the Bar Mitzvah. I am not contesting that at all.
But it is also clear from Luke that, (1.) That Mary was pregnant when she left to stay with Elizabeth for three months and that Elisabeth knew about it. (2. ) That Joseph and Mary had not come together and were still but espoused when Mary was "great with" child.
It is also clear that betrothed/espoused couples were forbidden to have sex. It was considered a sin. Anyone who saw Mary's pregnancy and did not know of the divine conception would have assumed that Joseph and Mary had jumped the gun, or that Mary had commited adultery with another while betrothed to Joseph. In either case it would have been fornication.
Mary spent most of her pregnancy in Nazareth after returning from Elisabeth's house in Juda. In the time of Jesus, Nazareth was a small agricuktural town of only a few dozen families, and it it not likely that Mary could have hidden her pregnancy from "the neighbors". They would most likely have known about it.
It is not unreasonable at all to speculate that Jesus may have been considered to have been "born of fornication" by some folks and that there *may* have been some stigma related to that.
Rafael posted:
quote: The "we be not born of fornication" was a self-defense comment from the Pharisees, not an accusatory one.
If I were to say, "Wait just a second there, I'm no illegal alien." That doesn't mean I'm accusing you of being one.
Yea, but what if I tell you, "Look, I know you are the blood decendent of Louis Olmeda, a good man, but your real father is Satan", and you then looked at me, presuming me to have been born a bastard, and said, "I was not born as a result of illicit sex". ???
With all due respect, I just don't see how you are so cocked-sure that this was a self-defense statement by the Pharisees.
What I said was the evidence for a self-defense argument in John 8 is more persuasive than the evidence for an accusatory argument.
I wouldn't call that "cocked-sure."
We're in agreement on the main substance of this issue. The argument has become a sidenote: what did they mean when they said "we be not born of fornication."
Let's note a couple of things here: John 8 is NOT taking place in Nazareth. It's taking place in the area of the Mount of Olives (most likely Jerusalem). The presumption that these people knew anything about Jesus' background is just that - a presumption. The religious leaders were as likely to know the circumstances of his birth as we know the circumstances of Bernard Cardinal Law's.
Right, that's my point.
So Jesus says to them, "IF you were Abraham's children, you would follow his example." Ooh, sounds like he's challenging their insistence that they are Abraham's children. Actually, he was not. He was challenging their definition of "children." But they obviously missed that point. So rather than say, "What do you mean children?" They say, "We weren't born of fornication!"
That doesn't sound defensive to you? Jesus challenged their heritage, and they defended it. Then they up the ante by saying their only Father is God! Well, sure they're going to say that. It's as relevant to the discussion as their lineage being traced to Abraham. These folks are defending themselves from the moment this conversation begins.
"We're Abraham's children. We're not slaves."
"Abraham is our father."
(Oh yeah, well IF that were the case - a challenge - you would do the things Abraham does).
"We are NOT born of fornication! Our Father is God!"
Every sentence they utter in this exchange is defensive.
Finally they unleash their accusation: YOU'RE A POSSESSED SAMARITAN! Nothing about the circumstances of his birth there. Why not? Because they don't know anything about the circumstances of his birth.
The people who KNEW the circumstances of his birth considered him Joseph's son. No mention of any stigma attached to Jesus.
These people in John 8 did not know the circumstances of Jesus' birth. They are not in his hometown. Their response is defensive until the point when Jesus says they are the devil's children. Then they lose it and lash out at Jesus.
It's not that I'm cocked sure. It's just that the more I look at this record, the less I see to substantiate a claim that they were challenging Jesus' mother. The viewpoint I once held on this verse is steadily evaporating.
Very interesting argument. Looking at the context and I too now believe you are correct.
The statement by the pharisees was in direct defence of Jesus's last accusation - John 8:39b Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Jesus had already agreed that they were actual of the same seed as Abraham (John 8:37) , but denied that they were spiritually children of him, and also that God was not their Father.
Those nations who worshipped other than the true God were called fornicators and harlots.
So their response tried to defend both those accusations -
Acc: You are not children of Abraham
Def: We are not born of fornicators (those who worship another God)
Acc: God is not your Father
Def: we have one Father - God!
Pretty mutch settles it for me. Another one bites the dust!
If you believe I am correct, then you are more certain on this matter than I am.
But I'm getting there.
More certain than anything else is that Jesus was openly considered Joseph's son. Look at John 1, when one of the apostles goes to his brother and says "We've found the messiah. It's Jesus, the son of Joseph!"
And John 6:42 reinforces that point.
I don't know, Goey. I've seen things the way you're arguing them for a really long time. It will take me some time to shake that belief. But it is, at the very least, a fascinating observation.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 20, 2003 at 16:09.]
I've been thinking about this discussion alot lately, and really, IMHO either perspective works in the bigger picture of things. Whether the Pharisees thought Jesus was "conceived in sin" or not, the main idea is still the same. They were being really nasty.
The only reason it even matters to us exwayfers is trying to prove VPW right or wrong. Sheesh. Even if the whole teaching from PFAL isn't an "actual error," at least the point has been made that there could be other explanations for the record in John 8.
Raf, I think I finally understand the difficulty in deciphering all this stuff. ;)-->
It seems to me that y’all (I’m a Texan too!) are making this way too difficult.
(From Luke 1)
Mary was already espoused to Joseph when the angel appeared to her.
The angel spoke to Mary about Jesus’ conception in the future tense.
If the “also” of Luke 1:36 means that Mary had already conceived, the conception would have happened while the angel was speaking, between verse 35 and verse 36, and before Mary consented in verse 38. Her saying “Be it unto me according to thy word” seems an odd reply if it had already been “done unto her” without her consent. It seems more likely that the sense is “even Elizabeth has conceived…”
The example of Elizabeth’s miraculous conception seems to have been cited in order to help Mary to believe that the seemingly impossible promise to her was genuine and that “With God, nothing shall be impossible.” After her conversation with the angel, Mary went “with haste” to visit Elizabeth, possibly to see for herself the miracle that she “who was called barren” was pregnant, thereby helping Mary to believe that what the angel told her would come to pass.
Not only did Mary see that Elizabeth was pregnant, she also heard Elizabeth prophesy that “there shall be a performance of those things which were told her [Mary] by the Lord.” That would be physical confirmation that the promise was possible and verbal confirmation that it would come to pass, both of which would help Mary to believe the promise. Elizabeth’s use of the future tense allows for the possibility that the conception had not yet occurred.
Mary’s statement that “he that is mighty hath done to me great things” is part of a list of things that God had done, is not specific, and does not necessarily indicate that the conception had occurred. It could even be that Mary did not conceive until after she returned to her own house.
(From Matthew 1)
Before Mary and Joseph came together, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” How her pregnancy was discovered, and by whom, is not said. It could be that she was not visibly pregnant. It could be that a missed period or morning sickness led to her finding herself with child and that she told Joseph and no one else. Thinking that she wouldn’t have done that calls her honesty and her faithfulness to her vows to Joseph into question. Forget the question of lying to the neighbors! Would she have lied to Joseph for three or more months?
Anyway, the Bible doesn’t say how far along in her pregnancy Mary was when Joseph found out that she was pregnant. It does say that he was considering what to do with her when the angel appeared to him in a dream. The angel said, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” and explained why. Then Joseph got up and did what the angel said to do. He “took unto him his wife.” Given the culture, that can’t mean that they shacked up. If they had, sullied reputations would have been the least of their worries. It means that they began living together as husband and wife, which would require the proper legal ceremony. From that point on, no one else would have considered them to be still espoused. The community would think no differently of them than of any other married couple. Unless Joseph went around complaining about “not getting any,” no one else would know that Joseph and Mary waited to consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born. That pretty well explains “espoused” in Luke 2:5. From Joseph and Mary’s perspective, they would have been still espoused until they consummated their marriage. From anyone else’s point of view, they would have been no different than any other married couple expecting a child.
I see no reason in the Bible to think that anyone except Joseph thought for a moment that there was the least impropriety surrounding Jesus conception or birth. Joseph did, until the angel told him otherwise.
Rafael has cited I Thessalonians 5:21 a few times in this thread. The next verse says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” It seems to me that if Joseph and Mary were good Jews, they would have wanted to avoid the appearance of evil. It seems to me that the God of the Bible would want them to avoid the appearance of evil in the birth of His Son, the Messiah. What the Bible says about Jesus’ conception and birth makes sense without any appearance of evil. Why read one into it? (I can think of several reasons why Wierwille might.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Mike
Has anyone yet addressed this one small angle I noticed, and posted?
It’s the angle of Dr’s admitted uncertainty on PFAL page 57.
Below is a collection together of four originally scattered paragraphs in my posts on this thread. I’ve collected them for repostation here, so that this issue of the uncertainty angle isn’t lost in the blizzard.
****************************************************************
Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused.
He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue.
Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..."
He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since LOST I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..."
On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion .....(which. often. well. characterizes. behind-the-scenes. academia)........ God gave him a revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let's address that, Mike.
On p. 57 Wierwille says that for years he "WAS NOT" able to understand that section of scripture. BUT, prior to that, on p. 56, he says with NO uncertainty at all that "...the community would not hear enough to believe because they did not think He could know anything SINCE HE WAS ILLEGITIMATE..."
There is a major problem with that statement, because as we see from scripture, the prevailing assumption among those who knew Jesus was that he was Joseph's son. This is the Bible's explicit teaching in at least two places. So they specifically believed him to be the son of a married couple, and thus, they did not believe him to be illegitimate.
But let's continue with the original point, where Wierwille expressed what you call "uncertainty."
The fact that Wierwille writes on p. 57 that for years he "WAS NOT" able to understand that verse indicates that he now is claiming to understand it. He uses the past tense (I WAS NOT able to understand) rather than the present (I have not been or still cannot understand).
Further, he goes through this bar-mitzvah explanation which is both anachronistic and highly speculative. "An old piece of literature" that 40 years of research failed to reproduce cannot be relied upon, as we do not even know who wrote it.
And then at the end of page 57 he writes WITH NO UNCERTAINTY AT ALL that "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown."
That means he is NO LONGER calling himself uncertain on this matter. He doesn't write "This MAY explain..." He writes, "This explains..." indicating certainty.
Now, your claim that he has received revelation here is interesting, but it is not a claim that Wierwille is making. You say he received revelation on this matter, but where does Wierwille say that? All he says is, I used to be uncertain about this. Now, based SOLELY on this old piece of literature that I can't or won't reproduce for you to verify independently, I am no longer uncertain. The reason they could not believe is that they thought Jesus was illegitimate."
Well, they didn't think he was illegitimate. The Bible states clearly, TWICE, that Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph. Joseph was Mary's husband. The child of married parents is not considered illegitimate in the Bible, even if the conception took place before the marriage.
So either the Bible was wrong, or Wierwille was wrong. I know what you're thinking: The Bible must be wrong.
I disrespectfully disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
somebody mentioned the tokens and that they would take that proof to the priests.....
where is that account in the gospels, saw it many years ago and can't locate it for some reason right now.......
Grizzy COLOR>SIZE>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Ok, thanks. I'm glad you gave that angle some consideration.
I have to admit I'm not following all this, but it's just a general principle to often go back to the beginning for reference, so I thought I’d suggest it. Lots of ACs clear up that way, by closely examining those originating details.
I just wanted to bring attention again back to what is actually printed, before bowing out. I'm way over budget in my consideration of this particular PFAL AC, so that's why I'm not trying too hard.
There's one particular Bible AC that nearly everyone has had lots of experience in bowing out of.
And by "bowing out" of a Bible AC or a PFAL AC I mean a procedure that is of utmost importance, to get it right. Getting one's withdrawal sequence mapped out beforehand is crucial in avoiding what is a common AC fate: becoming bogged down.
To avoid becoming "bogged down" there's one particular Bible AC that nearly everyone backs off and says: "I have to admit I'm not following all this"
The Bible AC I'm thinking of is radio carbon dating of manuscripts, shrouds, bones, etc.
I know this is not exactly a Bible AC as defined, but it’s similar.
I study physics, and I know how important it is for me to avoid becoming bogged down in that particular endless labyrinth. I'd never finish tracking down all the details, and so I back off chasing down ANY the physics of dating ancient materials. I'm not interested in BASING my life on that kind of foundation.
By backing off the distraction, the huge chunks of time that radio carbon dating (and other such tests) require of the serious student, there’s all the more time to come back and to enjoy reading the Word of God as it’s been delivered to us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Grizz
Check out Deuteronomy chapter 22.
:)-->
The practice you're referring to isn't mentioned in the gospels.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
If you say something I'll respond to it. Once again, you didn't say anything.
If you want to start an actual errors in the Bible thread, go ahead. But I keep seeing in you a willingness to tear down the Bible in order to save the reputation of yourrrrr preciousssss PFAL.
Wierwille would have been appalled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rafael,
We are using the terms "illegitimate" and "bastard" in a sense that may not be biblical. As you noted, all folks are "legitimate" but acccording Deuteronomy "bastards" are not allowed in the Temple. Clearly this not the case with Jesus. Jesus was not considered a bastard in the biblical sense and was therefore *legitimate* according to the law. He had to be.
So, is the real question is whether the Pharisees thought Jesus was "legitimate", or whether the Pharisees or anyone else believed that he was "born of fornication"?
In Luke 1:36 Gabriel tells Mary, "thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived..." - "Also", implying that Mary had indeed conceived before she left to visit her cousin Elisabeth for three months after which she returned to Nazareth.
Then some time later, in Luke 2:4-5, Mary is "great with child" yet the record says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". As I understand it according to Jewish tradition, a man and his espoused wife have not yet consumated the marriage. It is also forbidden for a esposued couple to have sex until after the marriage ceremony.
According to the Matthew Henry Study Bible:
Jesus was presumed to be born of a union between Joseph and Mary. When was this union then presumed to have taken place? I suggest that it likely that the Pharisees as well as others who knew them, presumed that union took place while Joseph and Mary were espoused and not yet officially married - according to the source above, an act that was strictly forbidden. Might this presumed act have been called "fornication" by the Pharisees in John 8:41?
Rafael Posted.
Yes, but only assuming that you mean legitimate according to Biblical laws and terms. He may have been presumed to have been "born of fornication" or whatever they called the call the "sin" of an esposed/betrothed couple having sex before the official marriage.
The presumption of Joseph having been Jesus' biological father is irrelevant to Jesus so-called legitimacy. According to Luke, they were still only "espoused" when Mary was "great with child". I see no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Mary and Joseph were anything other than espoused at the time of Jesus' birth.
What ramifications this may have had in biblical times is uinclear - it may have meant little. But in modern times in certain strict areas, it may have been considered a big deal.
This may be a case where confusion is caused by mixing biblical and modern terms modern, or by attempting to correlate biblical situations in modern terms according to modern ideas.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 19, 2003 at 22:08.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Goey
One thing that I've thought about is that no one neccessarily had to know about Mary's pregnancy, other than Joseph. And I'm pretty certain it's not something that would be announced to the neighbors or whoever. Suppose Joseph just kept it to himself, and they went through the marriage (coming together) ceremony as planned, just didn't consummate the marriage. I'm thinking Joseph might've even found out on their honeymoon night. In those days, long, loose flowing clothing was the norm. Even today, it's not that hard to hide a pregnancy if you really want to, especially with a first baby.
Joseph and Mary evidently left for Bethlehem to do their required thing for the census shortly before Mary's due date. Why? Surely there was a sufficient time frame involved, and they didn't HAVE to go right when they did. (Shoot, even we've got til April 15th to pay our taxes for the previous year.) Nobody I know plans a difficult trip when they're about to give birth. It's much easier to travel with a newborn than it is being "great with child." Trust me on this.
;)-->
Could it be that Joseph and Mary purposely planned their obliged trip to Bethlehem when they did so Mary wouldn't be home when the baby was born? Even nowadays, people hide pregnancies and then leave town to give birth so the neighbors won't know. Another intriguing thing to me is the fact that the couple stayed in Bethlehem and didn't return immediately to Nazareth. I think that's pretty clear from the record. (The Magi finding a young child in a house.) In Matthew 2:19ff, it's clear that they settled in Nazareth again after leaving Egypt upon Herod's death. As I mentioned before, years could have passed from the time Joseph and Mary left for Bethlehem and then finally made it back to Nazareth. Who knows, they could even have had another child/children by then. Would anyone really be the wiser about the circumstances of Jesus birth? LongGone made a good point that Joseph didn't divorce her, so perhaps everyone assumed all was well.
I'm telling ya, if the things that happened to Mary and Joseph happened to me, I would most definitely keep it to myself.
This is just one scenario I know, and I'm definitely filling in the blanks, but so far it makes the most sense to me.
Thanks for your insight. It's really been enjoyable for me reading everybody elses thoughts on the subject.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Ex10,
Did you read my post thoroughly (or is that throughy?)
;)-->
How then do you handle Luke 2:4-5 where Mary is great with child, yet it says clearly says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". There is no record of a comming together ceremony or a honeymoon night. Also, it pretty clear from Luke 1:42 - ? that Elisabeth also knew of Mary's conception. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph lied or were intentionally deceptive to family and friends about this devine conception? After both had been visited by an angel of God? Why would they do that ?
Try a few commentaries. Of those I have read, none have made this kind of specuation. What folks believe and practice today in the US bears little on what folk did in Jewish culture in those days. As for me, I kind of doubt that Joseph and Mary were too concerned about the neighbors at this point.
It seems they may have stayed for the "days of purification which" according to Leviticus 12 would have been 40 days after the birth of the child. Everything was done strircly according to the Law.
The Magi finding them in a house indicates that they moved out of the stable which was only temporary. They would have been in a "house" (okia) already if there had been room elsewhere. The arriving of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem coincides with the Feast of Tabernacles( according to many), which all the men of Israel were required attend. Bethlehem is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem so every room for miles around Jerusalem would have been already taken up. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts 8 days, so after this there would be have been room available elsewhere.
Ex10, what you are saying here is all based on the presumption that Mary and Joseph were somehow inclined to conceal Mary's pregnancy - That they were ashamed or so concerned about about what the neighbors thought, that they would leave town and be deceptive to friend and family to hide Mary's conception and pregnancy. I see no real evidence to suggest that at all. What you think you may have felt or done in Mary's situation bears little on what Mary & Joseph may have felt or done. Mary was a Jewess who had been chosen by God to give birth to His Messiah. These folks lived in another time and in a completely different culture and very likely did not think like us Texans.
:)-->
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, it might. If the comment was directed at Jesus and not as a self-defense comment (and the weight of evidence, in my opinion, favors the self-defense interpretation), then they could be making an allegation that Joseph and Mary got together before they were supposed to.
The problem is, I can't find any Biblical evidence of any stigma attached to a child conceived under such circumstances. Deuteronomy 22 states that the remedy for fornication is marriage (end of the chapter). It doesn't even raise the possibility of a child being conceived as a result of the premature union, indicating that it's simply not an issue.
So even assuming the verse in John 8 is a reference to the conception of Christ (a point I am finding more and more difficult to concede as I consider these records), it still does nothing to substantiate the claim that there was a stigma attached to Jesus because of it. "Your parents sinned and corrected themselves" is hardly an insult.
The evidence of stigma attached to Jesus by the community because of the circumstances surrounding his conception gets weaker and weaker the closer we look at scripture. Even presuming the worst, taking all the Biblical evidence into consideration, he was accused of being the son of parents who were betrothed and couldn't wait to get at each other. This is a FAR cry from "illegitimate," and there's nothing in the Bible or in Jewish culture to indicate that there's a stigma attached to the child in such circumstances.
Of course, there's that old piece of literature God told Wierwille to trust...
Yeah, right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Goey
I did read your post. I'm simply offering another perspective, which I thought I made clear was just my speculation.
And to answer your question, I am not implying that Mary would hide her pregnancy due to shame. I'm just saying that this was a unique circumstance, that had never occurred before. If Joseph was anything like my husband, I think he would definitely be into protecting his wife, her honor and reputation, especially since she was carrying the long awaited for Messiah. The wise thing to do in this instance, might be to just keep quiet about it. That's all I'm saying. After all, Herod was the king, he had a bad rep for being brutal and ruthless, and when he found out from the Magi that the messiah had been born, he didn't seem to waste any time trying to murder him. Sheesh, all through the OT the devil was trying to annihilate the Christ line. I would definitely say that Mary and Joseph needed to be very wise in this situation.
I've been pregnant quite a few times in my life. And yeah, a couple of those pregnancies were quite a surprise.
:)--> Even if Mary wasn't a Texan, she was a female. I think I can relate on that level. Any normal female who is about to give birth, especially to a first child when you really don't know what to expect, is vitally concerned with preparing for the birth. It's an obsession almost. I just can't see planning a trip, on foot no less (OK she's riding a donkey in all the pictures, that's even worse than walking I'd say. 
;)--> )
I don't know enough about the espousal/marriage thing to answer your question about that. Maybe I'll have time do some reading on it, maybe not. But I feel pretty confident that I have a little understanding of the subject we're talking about. If you disagree, that's fine.
I'm simply offering a scenario that may or may not make sense. If it doesn't to you, ok. I'm not trying to challenge you or anything, just voicing my opinion.
[This message was edited by ex10 on January 19, 2003 at 23:08.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rafael,
Question: If the fornication comment in John 8 was not directed at Jesus in some way, then where did it come from? Why did they even bring up fornication? The context in John 8:42 is clearly parentage or "Who's your daddy!"
I do agree thgough that there is no evidence of any stigma associated with the presumed sin of Joseph and Mary. But it seems to me that these Pharisees may have been grasping at straws to discredit Jesus, and that this fornication comment was probably the best they could come up with. - to bring up his parents presumed past indescretion.
BTW, the Pharisees did not add or imply the "corrected themselves" part - you did. It would be like someone bringing up the past sin of another, even though the person had apologized and repented of it and changed his ways. The one bringing it up is not concerned with whether or not the person has changed or repented - they just use the past as a weapon to discredit whenever convenient. Happens all the time. You should meet my ex-wife.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Sorry, triple post.
[This message was edited by ex10 on January 20, 2003 at 11:13.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
ooops.
[This message was edited by ex10 on January 20, 2003 at 11:14.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Goey
In the NIV John 8:41 reads: "We are not illigitimate children," they protested. The only Father we had is God himself."
I think the NIV translation is easier to understand than the KJV. Jesus was saying that he was the Son of the Father. He claimed to be speaking on his father's behalf. He was accusing the Pharisees of "belonging to your father, the devil...." vs.44. They were saying that they were the pure line of Abraham, which equated them with being the children of God. They were simply protesting the truth of Jesus' words to them. And I think, trying to discredit him and the same time because as I mentioned before in verse 48 they accused him of being a Samaritian. The Jews despised the Samaritans because they considered them half-breeds, NOT the children of Abraham like they were.
It seems really simple to me. I don't think they were referring to Jesus' actual parents at all. There's just no evidence to support that they were, especially reading the context. The whole argument was about who was from God and who wasn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ex10 beat me to the answer.
The "we be not born of fornication" was a self-defense comment from the Pharisees, not an accusatory one.
If I were to say, "Wait just a second there, I'm no illegal alien." That doesn't mean I'm accusing you of being one.
As for the stigma to the child being relevant, it goes back to the purpose of this discussion: Jesus was supposedly bar mitzvahed a year earlier than other boys BECAUSE HE WAS CONSIDERED ILLEGITIMATE. The more we examine all the related verses, the clearer it becomes that Wierwille's statement on this subject is NOT TRUE. IE, FALSE. IE, WRONG. If there's no stigma attached to the child in cases where the parents got together before they were supposed to (and there's NOTHING in the Bible or culture to suggest that there was), then Wierwille was wrong.
That's a thesis statement. I'm open to a presentation of evidence to the contrary. Unsubstantiated old pieces of literature need not apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
IN the NIV, John 8:41 reads:
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
While this may be easier to understand from a language point of view, the translators took great liberty in interpreting the phrase "born of fornication" to mean "illegitimate children". - It assumes way too much. "Born of fornication" (gk. ek porneias ouk egenn??n) does not directy correlate to "illegitimate children". The words used in the text do however directly correlate to "born of fornication. The NIV can bite you if you are not careful.
It is clear that VPW was in error concerning the Bar Mitzvah. I am not contesting that at all.
But it is also clear from Luke that, (1.) That Mary was pregnant when she left to stay with Elizabeth for three months and that Elisabeth knew about it. (2. ) That Joseph and Mary had not come together and were still but espoused when Mary was "great with" child.
It is also clear that betrothed/espoused couples were forbidden to have sex. It was considered a sin. Anyone who saw Mary's pregnancy and did not know of the divine conception would have assumed that Joseph and Mary had jumped the gun, or that Mary had commited adultery with another while betrothed to Joseph. In either case it would have been fornication.
Mary spent most of her pregnancy in Nazareth after returning from Elisabeth's house in Juda. In the time of Jesus, Nazareth was a small agricuktural town of only a few dozen families, and it it not likely that Mary could have hidden her pregnancy from "the neighbors". They would most likely have known about it.
It is not unreasonable at all to speculate that Jesus may have been considered to have been "born of fornication" by some folks and that there *may* have been some stigma related to that.
Rafael posted:
Yea, but what if I tell you, "Look, I know you are the blood decendent of Louis Olmeda, a good man, but your real father is Satan", and you then looked at me, presuming me to have been born a bastard, and said, "I was not born as a result of illicit sex". ???
With all due respect, I just don't see how you are so cocked-sure that this was a self-defense statement by the Pharisees.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What I said was the evidence for a self-defense argument in John 8 is more persuasive than the evidence for an accusatory argument.
I wouldn't call that "cocked-sure."
We're in agreement on the main substance of this issue. The argument has become a sidenote: what did they mean when they said "we be not born of fornication."
Let's note a couple of things here: John 8 is NOT taking place in Nazareth. It's taking place in the area of the Mount of Olives (most likely Jerusalem). The presumption that these people knew anything about Jesus' background is just that - a presumption. The religious leaders were as likely to know the circumstances of his birth as we know the circumstances of Bernard Cardinal Law's.
Right, that's my point.
So Jesus says to them, "IF you were Abraham's children, you would follow his example." Ooh, sounds like he's challenging their insistence that they are Abraham's children. Actually, he was not. He was challenging their definition of "children." But they obviously missed that point. So rather than say, "What do you mean children?" They say, "We weren't born of fornication!"
That doesn't sound defensive to you? Jesus challenged their heritage, and they defended it. Then they up the ante by saying their only Father is God! Well, sure they're going to say that. It's as relevant to the discussion as their lineage being traced to Abraham. These folks are defending themselves from the moment this conversation begins.
"We're Abraham's children. We're not slaves."
"Abraham is our father."
(Oh yeah, well IF that were the case - a challenge - you would do the things Abraham does).
"We are NOT born of fornication! Our Father is God!"
Every sentence they utter in this exchange is defensive.
Finally they unleash their accusation: YOU'RE A POSSESSED SAMARITAN! Nothing about the circumstances of his birth there. Why not? Because they don't know anything about the circumstances of his birth.
The people who KNEW the circumstances of his birth considered him Joseph's son. No mention of any stigma attached to Jesus.
These people in John 8 did not know the circumstances of Jesus' birth. They are not in his hometown. Their response is defensive until the point when Jesus says they are the devil's children. Then they lose it and lash out at Jesus.
It's not that I'm cocked sure. It's just that the more I look at this record, the less I see to substantiate a claim that they were challenging Jesus' mother. The viewpoint I once held on this verse is steadily evaporating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dexter
Rafael,
Very interesting argument. Looking at the context and I too now believe you are correct.
The statement by the pharisees was in direct defence of Jesus's last accusation - John 8:39b Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Jesus had already agreed that they were actual of the same seed as Abraham (John 8:37) , but denied that they were spiritually children of him, and also that God was not their Father.
Those nations who worshipped other than the true God were called fornicators and harlots.
So their response tried to defend both those accusations -
Acc: You are not children of Abraham
Def: We are not born of fornicators (those who worship another God)
Acc: God is not your Father
Def: we have one Father - God!
Pretty mutch settles it for me. Another one bites the dust!
Well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you believe I am correct, then you are more certain on this matter than I am.
But I'm getting there.
More certain than anything else is that Jesus was openly considered Joseph's son. Look at John 1, when one of the apostles goes to his brother and says "We've found the messiah. It's Jesus, the son of Joseph!"
And John 6:42 reinforces that point.
I don't know, Goey. I've seen things the way you're arguing them for a really long time. It will take me some time to shake that belief. But it is, at the very least, a fascinating observation.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 20, 2003 at 16:09.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rafael,
Sorry, I took your statement as being decisive. "Cocked-sure" was a poor choice of words.
All I am really arguing is the possibility of some folks back then believing that Jesus was conceived in sin.
Like you, I am not convinced one way or another on what the Pharisees meant.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I've been thinking about this discussion alot lately, and really, IMHO either perspective works in the bigger picture of things. Whether the Pharisees thought Jesus was "conceived in sin" or not, the main idea is still the same. They were being really nasty.
The only reason it even matters to us exwayfers is trying to prove VPW right or wrong. Sheesh. Even if the whole teaching from PFAL isn't an "actual error," at least the point has been made that there could be other explanations for the record in John 8.
Raf, I think I finally understand the difficulty in deciphering all this stuff.
;)-->
Holy smokes!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
It seems to me that y’all (I’m a Texan too!) are making this way too difficult.
(From Luke 1)
Mary was already espoused to Joseph when the angel appeared to her.
The angel spoke to Mary about Jesus’ conception in the future tense.
If the “also” of Luke 1:36 means that Mary had already conceived, the conception would have happened while the angel was speaking, between verse 35 and verse 36, and before Mary consented in verse 38. Her saying “Be it unto me according to thy word” seems an odd reply if it had already been “done unto her” without her consent. It seems more likely that the sense is “even Elizabeth has conceived…”
The example of Elizabeth’s miraculous conception seems to have been cited in order to help Mary to believe that the seemingly impossible promise to her was genuine and that “With God, nothing shall be impossible.” After her conversation with the angel, Mary went “with haste” to visit Elizabeth, possibly to see for herself the miracle that she “who was called barren” was pregnant, thereby helping Mary to believe that what the angel told her would come to pass.
Not only did Mary see that Elizabeth was pregnant, she also heard Elizabeth prophesy that “there shall be a performance of those things which were told her [Mary] by the Lord.” That would be physical confirmation that the promise was possible and verbal confirmation that it would come to pass, both of which would help Mary to believe the promise. Elizabeth’s use of the future tense allows for the possibility that the conception had not yet occurred.
Mary’s statement that “he that is mighty hath done to me great things” is part of a list of things that God had done, is not specific, and does not necessarily indicate that the conception had occurred. It could even be that Mary did not conceive until after she returned to her own house.
(From Matthew 1)
Before Mary and Joseph came together, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” How her pregnancy was discovered, and by whom, is not said. It could be that she was not visibly pregnant. It could be that a missed period or morning sickness led to her finding herself with child and that she told Joseph and no one else. Thinking that she wouldn’t have done that calls her honesty and her faithfulness to her vows to Joseph into question. Forget the question of lying to the neighbors! Would she have lied to Joseph for three or more months?
Anyway, the Bible doesn’t say how far along in her pregnancy Mary was when Joseph found out that she was pregnant. It does say that he was considering what to do with her when the angel appeared to him in a dream. The angel said, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” and explained why. Then Joseph got up and did what the angel said to do. He “took unto him his wife.” Given the culture, that can’t mean that they shacked up. If they had, sullied reputations would have been the least of their worries. It means that they began living together as husband and wife, which would require the proper legal ceremony. From that point on, no one else would have considered them to be still espoused. The community would think no differently of them than of any other married couple. Unless Joseph went around complaining about “not getting any,” no one else would know that Joseph and Mary waited to consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born. That pretty well explains “espoused” in Luke 2:5. From Joseph and Mary’s perspective, they would have been still espoused until they consummated their marriage. From anyone else’s point of view, they would have been no different than any other married couple expecting a child.
I see no reason in the Bible to think that anyone except Joseph thought for a moment that there was the least impropriety surrounding Jesus conception or birth. Joseph did, until the angel told him otherwise.
Rafael has cited I Thessalonians 5:21 a few times in this thread. The next verse says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” It seems to me that if Joseph and Mary were good Jews, they would have wanted to avoid the appearance of evil. It seems to me that the God of the Bible would want them to avoid the appearance of evil in the birth of His Son, the Messiah. What the Bible says about Jesus’ conception and birth makes sense without any appearance of evil. Why read one into it? (I can think of several reasons why Wierwille might.)
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Thank you, Long Gone. I get it. I agree, it isn't that hard.
:)--> even for us Texans. 
:D-->
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.