Joseph Her Husband

[darthdodo]

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Ok, first let me explain Jewish culture.

First, a man and a woman go through a courting process, then get betrothed (engangement in our culture)... the man then comes home to prepare a home beside his father's house so that when he has his father's permission he can come and get his bride and they will go and have sex... also before this is the wedding ceremony...

now in Jewish culture you're considered married when you are betrothed... the wedding ceremony is only a public statement that you are... a public awareness...

kind of how getting saved means your saved... getting Baptized in water is a public example... although you should be saved before you're Baptized...

not meaning that being Baptized MAKES you saved... it doesn't.

So in this context of scripture Joseph and Mary were married. But they haven't yet gone through the wedding ceremony, meaning they weren't allowed to have sex...

So what would have caused Mary to be in trouble (in Joseph's eyes) wasn't that they weren't yet married, but the fact that they've yet to have the ceremony completing their marriage.

This is a good example of why you need to sometimes put aside what you've always been told about scripture and read it yourself.

[TFE]

And this means what in the context of the story? Semantically there's a difference?

[Jango Reiss]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, yet it's the funniest title for a thread on this site to date.

[darthdodo]

I'm not saying that Mary was not a virgin... and I'm not saying they could have legally had sex. It really doesn't give or take anything away from the story. I just thought it was interesting.

For years people have heard the Christmas story, but they often pass over the words that blatantly tell people they were married. They just hadn't had the ceremony.

In my opinion it's not the dumbest thing... It's not different then posting a picture of a church sign saying "Jesus is Coming, Resistance is Futile"... posting that in a Sodomy thread had no relevance. But yet it was posted and nobody made fun of it.

I just figured since some of you guys are so much so Christians that you'd want to learn something new about the Bible. You know, real Christians should be eager to learn new Bible truths whether they have relevance or not.

[jmcmatt]

darthdodo said:

In my opinion it's not the dumbest thing... It's not different then posting a picture of a church sign saying "Jesus is Coming, Resistance is Futile"... posting that in a Sodomy thread had no relevance. But yet it was posted and nobody made fun of it.

That's 'cause it was funny.

[TFE]

darthdodo said:

I'm not saying that Mary was not a virgin... and I'm not saying they could have legally had sex. It really doesn't give or take anything away from the story. I just thought it was interesting.

For years people have heard the Christmas story, but they often pass over the words that blatantly tell people they were married. They just hadn't had the ceremony.

In my opinion it's not the dumbest thing... It's not different then posting a picture of a church sign saying "Jesus is Coming, Resistance is Futile"... posting that in a Sodomy thread had no relevance. But yet it was posted and nobody made fun of it.

I just figured since some of you guys are so much so Christians that you'd want to learn something new about the Bible. You know, real Christians should be eager to learn new Bible truths whether they have relevance or not.

In your proof (original post) you state they weren't allowed to have sex yet, which, by our current (moral) customs, would place them at the "engagement" point. That's what the meaning of the story got at to me.

Now, assuming your original post is what you mean, this is the danger in translation. You go to the point of saying they were married by Jewish culture. Immediately you then state that that means they were more or less married by our standards, when in fact, by your own definitions, they were technically engaged by our standards. This would be the double edged sword of going back to the original translation.

[Jango Reiss]

darthdodo said:

I'm not saying that Mary was not a virgin... and I'm not saying they could have legally had sex. It really doesn't give or take anything away from the story. I just thought it was interesting.

For years people have heard the Christmas story, but they often pass over the words that blatantly tell people they were married. They just hadn't had the ceremony.

In my opinion it's not the dumbest thing... It's not different then posting a picture of a church sign saying "Jesus is Coming, Resistance is Futile"... posting that in a Sodomy thread had no relevance. But yet it was posted and nobody made fun of it.

I just figured since some of you guys are so much so Christians that you'd want to learn something new about the Bible. You know, real Christians should be eager to learn new Bible truths whether they have relevance or not.

Yes, real Christians are eager to learn new Bible truths, not Bible "truths" that a 15 year old misinterpreted.

[Nathan Jey'Daan]

jango said:

darthdodo said:

I'm not saying that Mary was not a virgin... and I'm not saying they could have legally had sex. It really doesn't give or take anything away from the story. I just thought it was interesting.

For years people have heard the Christmas story, but they often pass over the words that blatantly tell people they were married. They just hadn't had the ceremony.

In my opinion it's not the dumbest thing... It's not different then posting a picture of a church sign saying "Jesus is Coming, Resistance is Futile"... posting that in a Sodomy thread had no relevance. But yet it was posted and nobody made fun of it.

I just figured since some of you guys are so much so Christians that you'd want to learn something new about the Bible. You know, real Christians should be eager to learn new Bible truths whether they have relevance or not.

Yes, real Christians are eager to learn new Bible truths, not Bible "truths" that a 15 year old misinterpreted.

QFT

[darthdodo]

Real Christians?

I'm not gonna argue any more. I'm not gonna cast pearls among swine. Goodbye.

[Nathan Jey'Daan]

I would contest the comparison of "people who disagree with your beliefs" as inherently "swine." I would also contest the comparison of your personal beliefs to pearls.

[darthdodo]

It's not just that. I can quote DIRECTLY from the Bible (without making mention about it being the Bible) and you call me an idiot.

[Nathan Jey'Daan]

You fail at context.

[jmcmatt]

admin said:

You fail at context.

Yeah, we're not calling the Bible an idiot.

[Jango Reiss]

darthdodo said:

Real Christians?

I'm not gonna argue any more. I'm not gonna cast pearls among swine. Goodbye.

You don't believe what I do, swine! Instead of casting pearls to you, I shall cast breath mints.

[Jacinth Visor]

what's this whole debate about anyway?