H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Nordscoven,
I don’t have the ability right now to go through your last post. Perhaps in a few days I will feel well enough again to do so with more than a cursory glance. I agree with some of what you said, but I think you may have been mildly misled.
(Or perhaps I am…)
I mentioned divorce: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=398&letter=D&search=divorce
The wife of the King is not “queen” until after he is dead. She is the queen Mother – not the queen wife. The command to honor one’s mother and father lays the foundation of this understanding.
I agree that the notion of King or rather pre-king dynastic heads of family is one of service and not arbitrary raw power which is the modern notion of the term KING. The eldest son, also was called to serve his family and tribe.
The pedigrees, both old and new testament, are explicitly patriarchal. The law of Moses and the law of the fathers from the time of Isaac forbade the marrying of foreign women. Thus, one’s standing was affected by the mother – but the lineage was of the father. I have heard quite a bit on the side that you seem to be taking of the issue, and I don’t see the opinion very well supported.
Women inherited the property of their husbands when they died; Wives were the flesh of the husband upon receiving his “seed” whether barren or not. Thus women who’s husbands were killed in the Exodus were still given property since they had the right to this inheritance being their husbands flesh. And Ruth (of the same book) inherits property which her new husband would share once she married.
Yet Ruth is a scandal in the family records of Matthew…
I don’t understand the “gender neutrality” argument of Gen 3:15; in the LXX, it is not a collective, but envisages a single male offspring. The collective notion is one I would like to accept, but don’t see as appropriate at the present moment based on the literal reading of the text. I don’t know what to think about your point concerning the authority of the woman; PeterK gave alternate reasons to understand the woman’s role earlier in the thread which I found quite reasonable:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5465482&postcount=8
also see also the posts which follow, by rewinding this thread to post 8 – the above link is just a quick intro to see if it interests you.
You might also have some useful commentary to add here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315355
Finally: Father can refer to ANY of the progenitors of a line.
Since sister also means cousin, there is no guarantee that Abraham married his half sister – though this is off the top of my head, and perhaps a review of the text will show I am in error. Check, would you?
Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.
I don’t have the ability right now to go through your last post. Perhaps in a few days I will feel well enough again to do so with more than a cursory glance. I agree with some of what you said, but I think you may have been mildly misled.
(Or perhaps I am…)
I mentioned divorce: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=398&letter=D&search=divorce
Some quick notes:
The wife of the King is not “queen” until after he is dead. She is the queen Mother – not the queen wife. The command to honor one’s mother and father lays the foundation of this understanding.
I agree that the notion of King or rather pre-king dynastic heads of family is one of service and not arbitrary raw power which is the modern notion of the term KING. The eldest son, also was called to serve his family and tribe.
The pedigrees, both old and new testament, are explicitly patriarchal. The law of Moses and the law of the fathers from the time of Isaac forbade the marrying of foreign women. Thus, one’s standing was affected by the mother – but the lineage was of the father. I have heard quite a bit on the side that you seem to be taking of the issue, and I don’t see the opinion very well supported.
Women inherited the property of their husbands when they died; Wives were the flesh of the husband upon receiving his “seed” whether barren or not. Thus women who’s husbands were killed in the Exodus were still given property since they had the right to this inheritance being their husbands flesh. And Ruth (of the same book) inherits property which her new husband would share once she married.
Yet Ruth is a scandal in the family records of Matthew…
I don’t understand the “gender neutrality” argument of Gen 3:15; in the LXX, it is not a collective, but envisages a single male offspring. The collective notion is one I would like to accept, but don’t see as appropriate at the present moment based on the literal reading of the text. I don’t know what to think about your point concerning the authority of the woman; PeterK gave alternate reasons to understand the woman’s role earlier in the thread which I found quite reasonable:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5465482&postcount=8
also see also the posts which follow, by rewinding this thread to post 8 – the above link is just a quick intro to see if it interests you.
You might also have some useful commentary to add here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=315355
Finally: Father can refer to ANY of the progenitors of a line.
Since sister also means cousin, there is no guarantee that Abraham married his half sister – though this is off the top of my head, and perhaps a review of the text will show I am in error. Check, would you?
Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.