-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity
- Thread starter PaulF
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Your approach seems Pharisaical when it suits. By that I mean it seems Jewish Law must be followed except when it isn't.
I see it as we have both offered an interpretation of the same text based on the tradition that we follow.
Scriptures is silent when it comes to saying Joseph knew Mary on the Biblical sense.
Wrong dichotomy.
You proposed 3 scenarios for how it played out. My point was that there are a myriad of other options that we may not even have insight into. What was recorded may not be the totality of what happened.
Well 3 wouldn't make a dichotomy, would it. Show me more options. What was recorded was what was necessary. I don't need to claim anything more than that.
Last edited:
You are using tradition. I choose to believe scripture using the qualifying clause following "till" in Matthew 1:25.
I don't care about tradition, really. It is just a convenience when scripture is silent. That isn't the case here. I don't know how you determined my pharisaical status when I simply accept what Christ said. No exceptions were given by Him or me. He pointed out an incorrect view of the law. I believe His interpretation.
And my position of honoring marriage predates Jewish law.
Last edited:
Yeah, but "artificial trichotomy" sounds like something out of Star Trek TOS. Or Harry Potter. The lines get blurry.
The question about whether you or I can come up with more options is irrelevant to God. The answer does not impact Jesus' 2-part commandment. It is interesting, and could be further proof of God's power if we knew how it worked out, but it is not necessary to faith.
For all we know, God told Joseph what to do directly, but he kept it to himself. To suggest there is a finite number of options is to imply a limit to God's power.
We don't know the answer. We don't need to know the answer.
ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
Matthew 13:55? Mark 6:3?
I guess if those aren't His brothers and sisters than Mary isn't His mother either.
I guess if those aren't His brothers and sisters than Mary isn't His mother either.
Yeah, but "artificial trichotomy" sounds like something out of Star Trek TOS. Or Harry Potter. The lines get blurry.
The question about whether you or I can come up with more options is irrelevant to God. The answer does not impact Jesus' 2-part commandment. It is interesting, and could be further proof of God's power if we knew how it worked out, but it is not necessary to faith.
For all we know, God told Joseph what to do directly, but he kept it to himself. To suggest there is a finite number of options is to imply a limit to God's power.
We don't know the answer. We don't need to know the answer.
Hmm, I was thinking trichotomy could be a medical procedure on a 3rd item that doesn't belong. Like an extra ear.
So God told Joseph to marry Mary. Joseph kept it to himself, and that made ignoring God's command OK? I'm not trying to reinvent anything here. I'm trying to see how there is a sequence of events that allows Joseph to not follow through on what God told him to do. My position does not require any such thing.
I believe Joseph did what God told him to do, and he and Mary honored God's design for marriage. And that does nothing to hurt Mary. In fact, God's miracle was accomplished, and she then went on to live the most obedient life possible. That she would do otherwise makes her less obedient, or subject to some exception scripture does not support. I don't have to try to support that. But if I wanted to believe in her perpetual virginity, I would want to have scripture to back that up. Otherwise she has been disobedient, or else Joseph was. And that seems difficult to believe, since Joseph at least married her, or they went through a 12 year engagement that ended without a wedding.
As you drive around, look at old church buildings and you will see this with your own eyes. This holds true for Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox buildings. This tendency is still in our religous DNA.
Odd Aside:
That is where we get the phrase "orientation" from. As churches were built to face the east (Orient), therefore the became "Oriented".
Well, a couple thousand years later, we get threads like this and I get disoriented...
Our sanctuary faces south. I think yours faces north. Maybe the builders got disoriented.
Yeah. Well, over time architects and engineers get a hold of things and mess it all up for "Structural stability" and "best use of land" nonsense.
You are using your tradition to make the text say something it doesn't. What are the stages of Jewish marriage? What are the distinctives of each stage? What is the Jewish Law that dictates a move to the second within a certain time frame? I don't know, but I don't think Baptists practice betrothal. Most Protestants engage and marry but engagement today is watered down compared to betrothal. In the Orthodox church the betrothal and marriage are separate rites. I don't think engagement even involves a church.
What is the scripture that states Joseph knew Mary. What scripture says anything other than betrothed. Where were these younger brothers and sisters on the trip to Jerusalem? Where were they at the cross? Should they have been there by Jewish law? Yes scripture is silent on these issues but no more silent than to first two examples. It is your tradition that is filling in the gaps for you.
I showed you two other scriptural passages where the word until was followed by a clause that didn't imply future action. I gave numerous references to cross check the usage. A couple more, Psalm 71:7, 1 Cor. 15:25. Matt 28:20.
Christ never said failing to consummate is a sin, if that is our criterion.
I said your approach seems Pharisaical not you. If it came across as a personal charge, I apologize.
The Pharisees were actually well liked because they took the laws of God, 700ish and turned them into over a 1000ish? I am at work today so i can not fact check myself thoroughly. Anyway they were liked because they spelled out exactly what was breaking the law by defining what constitutes work on the Sabbath for example. Christ showed that this approach was not exactly right either by pointing out exceptions both by example and in the OT.
Why is it so important that Joseph and Mary not be an exception also?
Again most reformers taught the same. What new knowledge has come to light to make certain that conclusion is incorrect?
Scripture tells me they were still together 12 years later. The marriage process isn't that long.
Scripture tells me he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. That has a clear implication.
No tradition necessary or present in that.
Scripture tells me he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. That has a clear implication.
No tradition necessary or present in that.
Last edited:
Show me how it is. I've shown scripture. I use nothing else to support my position. If I have cited any tradition, please show me.
That what I say contradicts your tradition does not by default make my position a tradition.
Once again, they were together at least 12 years. That is scripture. Saying the children were born during that time is an assumption. They could have been a blended family, but that is also an assumption. But that they were together is very scriptural.
That the scripture qualifies "knew her not" with "till she had delivered her firstborn Son" is not tradition. It is the wording that is there.
Placing these facts together doesn't really require a leap of faith or logic. It is quite simple, really. But I could be comfortable saying they had no children together. I think that is inaccurate, but it isn't a matter of import for me. But the Bible does make their consummated marriage clear.
Last edited:
As far as consummation goes, that goes back to the garden. Sex is not sinful. It is the physical union of two people spiritually united. Man was made in the image of God, and the woman made from the man. God's nature is revealed in the various traits of the man and the woman. These are brought back together by design. Extramarital sex is sin because it defiles this, not because marriage is an exception to an otherwise sinful act. And so a spiritually united couple must be physically united.
Jewish tradition is just that: tradition. It is an expression of God's design, not the standard for marriage.
Jewish tradition is just that: tradition. It is an expression of God's design, not the standard for marriage.
"Not" makes a big difference in this type of sentence. It brings determination to the conjunction.
If I say "I am not going to watch the Colts play until they get a good O-line", that means I will watch them following the completion of a future event.
If I say "I will play euchre until the sun comes up", then there usually is an implied termination at a certain future event. But that statement rarely might be a rhetorical device that implies the opposite: it is indeterminate. Context has to be our guide in this case.
If I say "I will follow Christ until He returns" that places no determination on my service. It simply means I will be faithful until Faith is no longer relevant.
But "not" is always a sign of determination.
- Status
