M
mcq72
Guest
So a fancier word would be imputed ?
- Status
M
MarysLurker
Guest
So Calvin changed his mind. Kind of undermines his credibility, methinks.
Especially since he is supposedly a Bible expert and has never heard of the Nazirites (Numbers 6:1-21), or the women attendants at the altar (Exodus 38:8) (who became the order of Temple Virgins of whom Mary was one).
M
mcq72
Guest
understand…some have said but if here was no monastic life then this was the only way for someone called to celibacy could survive , by “marrying” with consent from spouse to abstain per vow. Now if there was monastic life, why marry ?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s a modern, western-centric anachronism. “Consummation”, from a historical perspective, has only been a ratification of marriage in a Christian context (IIRC, from the French traditions, dating back to medieval times). On the other hand, the importance of consummation, in earlier cultures, was to verify the virginity of the bride. So, if you want to claim that consummation is tied to marriage rather than betrothal, you’ll need to provide some evidence that this is a valid claim in the context of 1st-century Palestine.
That’s an interesting point… but that’s not the argument you’re presenting here. We’re talking about what is considered a binding marital relationship, right? Consummation isn’t the final step in that process, in the context of the culture of our discussion.
Please demonstrate that this is the case in 1st century Palestine.
Please demonstrate that “first night” is tied to the wedding feast. (In western medieval times, you’re spot on. Not in the context of the present discussion, however.)
Two thoughts:
- First, you’ll have to do a bit better in the attempt to tie “takes a wife” to “the wedding feast”.
- Second, this passage is about a husband who sinfully decides to slander his wife and get out of the marriage by a false declaration of lack of virginity. That isn’t even tangential to the case you’re attempting to make.
Seriously? Umm… his comment is bound up in Christendom. It’s appropriate for our time and culture and religious norms… but entirely lacking in context for 1st-century Palestine Jewish practice.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Exactly, which goes to show that the Protestants were thoroughly engaged in revisionist history from the start when they rejected Mary’s perpetual virginity.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Nope.
There is a waterfall. I walk under it and the water covers me.
There is a waterfall. I draw some water and drink it.
In both situations I am not the source of the water.
M
mcq72
Guest
NO.
We are talking about tradition and biblical dictates for betrothal, wedding and virginity (holiness).
well, were they unbiblical at that time, was the seat of Moses vacant at that time ? Did Deuteronomy stands for nothing…on what grounds could Joseph divorce her by but old laws from Moses, the ones i posted ?
PS- I would like to hear you say conjugal “union” was acceptable and holy immediately after and any time in between betrothal and wedding.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
not sure i follow,but if you walk underwater and drink it in, are not some water properties imputed to you, further sustained, etc.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Can’t tell, because this stuff is not in the Bible. So there is no biblical case for your theory.
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK. So… we know that Mary and Joseph were betrothed. We know that their relationship (in the context of the Judaism of their day) could only be dissolved by divorce… so, marriage, right? And, we know that Mary was virginal. So… what’s your complaint?
LOL! Seriously? “Unbiblical”? “Vacant seat of Moses”? Gee… it might be time for you to re-read the Bible, especially where Jesus explicitly affirms that the seat of Moses isn’t vacant, but which asserts valid teaching (Matt 23:2).
M
mcq72
Guest
so marriage yes… no complaint. I am only saying she may have been virginal because they had not been wed yet.
M
mcq72
Guest
ditto ( I questioned you not me on validity of Moses seat when Christ was born)…what I was saying, so why not address the Moses seat section on weddings and virginity and marriage in Deuteronomy, that bound Mary and Joesph.
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
The illustration was just to show the water is the source, regardless of whether it is imputed or infused.
M
mcq72
Guest
lol…gotta rest , now we have adult word "infused "
G
Gorgias
Guest
If they weren’t wed, then why was Joseph’s response to his wife’s pregnancy “divorce”?
M
mcq72
Guest
because they were married ,betrothed…read deuteronomy…she was pregnant and it wasn’t His…they were virgin to each other…others would think she CHEATED ON BETROTHAL
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Again you’re reading a timing of consummating into it that isn’t there
M
mcq72
Guest
it is there, to those that have an eye to see it
“This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”
“Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law,”…Deuteronomy 22: 13-21
" when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; " Mat.1:25
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
You only have an eye to see it because you are totally fine with a changeable God.
M
mcq72
Guest
" yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly."
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
- Status