You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
hope
Guest
This gives the quote that you use more context. Who is the them that Jesus is referring too? Earlier Jesus identifies themNo disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master
It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, for the slave that he become like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household! "Therefore do not be afraid of them. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known. What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light; what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Jesus is speaking of those who will kill them. Most of the disciples were martyred. Jesus is telling them not to fear their death but to fear Gehenna. Gehenna was a valley that obtained an evil reputation. It came however, to have the meaning of hell. God does not destroy souls therefore Jesus is talking of the devil.But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues,
Where do you find that Satan will be destroyed?No. Satan is among those who is destroyed. Jesus is speaking of God the Just Judge
You make some unwarranted assumptions. She was a married woman and the angels says she is going to conceive a child. The normal question would not be I don’t know man but Yeah Joseph and I are going to have a baby. It would not be normal to think it would “work without the normal mode” Nope it makes no sense for a married woman to ask how?And, as I said, the vow is a little T tradition? Mary is just asking a normal question on how the pregnancy would work without the normal mode.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
So eternal damnation ain’t a thing? Wow.God does not destroy souls
Is hell not punishment for the devil and his angels?Where do you find that Satan will be destroyed?
How so? Wasn’t this before they lived together? It seems you are making the assumptions.You make some unwarranted assumptions
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
To people who are afraid.That is pretty much a standard greeting by angels.
The issue here is personal discomfort.
H
hope
Guest
.So eternal damnation ain’t a thing? Wow
It depends on how you define destroy. Destroy has the meaning of cease to exist.
All those who go to hell will not cease to exist. Therefore they are not destroyed.
It was before they lived together but they were married. Being a married woman it is a strange question to ask unless she was not intending to “know” Joseph. I find it also strange that she doesn’t even mention her husband She doesn’t say Joseph and I aren’t living together. She says she knows not man, not just Joseph. Furthermore, she was in that period that she was waiting for Joseph to come for her to take her to his house. The assumption that would be normal is that Joseph would b coming for her soon.How so? Wasn’t this before they lived together? It seems you are making the assumptions.
I would also remind you that although you say it is a small t tradition. It is a dogma that must be believe that she remained a virgin which again implies a vow more strongly than it is just a small t tradition.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Kill. And Hell is the second death.It depends on how you define destroy.
The dogma doesn’t necessitate a vow. Mary and Joseph can simply decide to dedicate their lives to solely raising Jesus.It is a dogma that must be believe that she remained a virgin which again implies a vow more strongly than it is just a small t tradition.
So why is there so much buzz when she eventually is found to be with child?Furthermore, she was in that period that she was waiting for Joseph to come for her to take her to his house. The assumption that would be normal is that Joseph would b coming for her soon.
When two parties live together is when the marriage is consummated. So, Mary’s just simply asking how she can have a kid even though she’s not married yet.She doesn’t say Joseph and I aren’t living togeth
H
hope
Guest
Because Joseph knew the child wasn’t his and the only thing he thought of is she committed adultery.So why is there so much buzz when she eventually is found to be with child?
They were married. So she wasn’t asking that question. Joseph is told by the Angel to take into his house his wife.When two parties live together is when the marriage is consummated. So, Mary’s just simply asking how she can have a kid even though she’s not married yet.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And that was when consummation usually occured. In Mary and Joseph’s case, it never happened.So she wasn’t asking that question. Joseph is told by the Angel to take into his house his wife.
Which speaks more for the regular situation not presupposing a vow.Because Joseph knew the child wasn’t his and the only thing he thought of is she committed adultery.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
You are correct but that still leave the fact of Mary’s question. A question that makes no sense coming from a married woman. It does make sense if she had taken a vow of virginity.And that was when consummation usually occured. In Mary and Joseph’s case, it never happened.
No it doesn’t. There is really no connection to Joseph believing that she had committed adultery’ and Mary making a vow of virginity…Which speaks more for the regular situation not presupposing a vow.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
It makes sense when you consider the immediacy of the statement and the fact Mary wasn’t in Joseph’s home yet.You are correct but that still leave the fact of Mary’s question. A question that makes no sense coming from a married woman.
H
hope
Guest
It makes sense when you consider the immediacy of the statement and the fact Mary wasn’t in Joseph’s home yet.
“you will” does not mean immediate. Her answer was not a typical answer for a woman who was married and waiting for her husband to come get her. Under normal circumstances, she would have assumed that Joseph coming for her would be soon. It is strange that she does not even mention Joseph but men in general. Considering the whole circumstance her question is strange if not for the vow.Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Behold is translated as “and now” in other translations. Yeah. It’s immediate.“you will” does not mean immediate
You’re forgetting that the couple had to be pure for a year before they went into their house.Her answer was not a typical answer for a woman who was married and waiting for her husband to come get her.
H
hope
Guest
I checked ten other translations most had you will Douay and King James had thou shalt and the Greek where they translate it from has sullnabano which is future tense. So no not immediate.Behold is translated as “and now” in other translations. Yeah. It’s immediate.
I have two problems with this statement.You’re forgetting that the couple had to be pure for a year before they went into their house.
- you have no idea at what point in their marriage that the angel appeared to Mary.
- I have never heard that they had to be “pure” for a year.
What I have understood is that the husband prepared a place for his wife and when it was finished being prepared he went and got her. But according to the parables of Jesus no one knew when that would be.
Again it remains a strange question the way you present it.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Yeah. It’s immediate. Remember it was a good while before Mary lived in Joseph’s house.I checked ten other translations most had you will Douay and King James had thou shalt and the Greek where they translate it from has sullnabano which is future tense
It was before they lived together and a considerable amount of time because Joseph was cued in on Mary’s pregnancy.you have no idea at what point in their marriage that the angel appeared to Mary
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htmI have never heard that they had to be “pure” for a year.
H
hope
Guest
What you forgot is that what the angel said was future tense. How much in the future? I believe when she answered yes. But when she asked the Angel the question she would not have believed that it was instant as he asked as a future event. If she were expecting a normal marriage, she would not have asked How she would have assumed that it would be with Joseph. That she did not make that assumption makes the question strange. As for your link to the Jewish marriage right it supports what I have been writing. I could not find that they had to be “pure” for a year. Only that it could take “up” to a year to prepare for the second part of marriage. Joseph fulfilled the second part of marriage, as the angel commanded, before Mary gave birth.Yeah. It’s immediate. Remember it was a good while before Mary lived in Joseph’s house
BTW what translation do you find that is says now? As I said, I checked 14 translations none had now? Oh and thank you for the link. It was an interesting link.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Again Mary had yet to live with Joseph.If she were expecting a normal marriage, she would not have asked How she would have assumed that it would be with Joseph
H
hope
Guest
But she was expecting to which her question does not reflect.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
I misread your post.Behold is translated as “and now” in other translations. Yeah. It’s immediate.
Yeah it is translated as now. BUT it doesn’t change the meaning of what follows which is in future tense. It doesn’t change that Mary was married in the period of the marriage that she was waiting for her husband to take her to his home. It doesn’t change that as a married woman she would normally expect to be having children with her husband. Since the angel spoke as it being a future event, if she had not made a vow of virginity, she would not have asked a question about not having relations with a man as she should have assumed it would have been with Joseph. Joseph, who she does not even mention by name.idou: look, behold
Original Word: ἰδού
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: idou
Phonetic Spelling: (id-oo’)
Definition: look, behold
Usage: See! Lo! Behold! Look!.
Not immediate and still a strange question which you have not explained. Saying she was not with Joseph does not explain it as it doesn’t explain why she would not have thought she would be with Joseph.
The implication of a vow is there.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
If you read it in there.The implication of a vow is there.
Again, it’s been three months or so before they entered the second stage of the marriage.Since the angel spoke as it being a future event, if she had not made a vow of virginity, she would not have asked a question about not having relations with a man as she should have assumed it would have been with Joseph.
H
hope
Guest
Non-answer. It does not change that the angel spoke of a future event so how long before they lived together is non-starter.Again, it’s been three months or so before they entered the second stage of the marriage.
It should be noted that when Gabriel told Mary she would conceive he gave no time frame, he didn’t say when or how. It was only after Mary’s question that he tells her it would not be the normal way.
I do as many others in history have as well.If you read it in there.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.