Blood covenant / marriage

[EternalRhyme]

That is correct.
And they were just as 'bound' in 'marriage' as they ever would be at betrothal.
She was already Joes covenant 'wife' well before any sex ever took, place.
This blood on the penis thing is nothing but nonsense.

Why does this matter, Jesus is not born of a man? I don't understand your line of thought.

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm not playing games. It is not obvious to me at all. I've never heard anyone say it was important theologically.

Jesus had no biological human father. I see absolutely no theological reason why his mother would have had to have a human husband. I am just so surprised anyone would think that was important. I can't fathom why. That's why I asked.

I see
I have to admit, Liz, I cant tell when you are trying to set me up and when Im being overly paranoid

I can see why it was important socially at the time, but if God had provided for Mary and Jesus in some other way, that would have been fine, too. I can even see that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke both purport to be genealogies of Joseph, not Mary. We could talk about the curiosities of that sometime. Perhaps it has some significance.

Ah...genealogies seems to make some sence

But illegitimacy by itself just doesn't seem to be all that significant.

Hmm....the Holy Messiah being born into a sinful union (sex but no marriage) ?

Jesus is called the "son of David," among other titles, and David was a 10th-generation mamzer (Deut. 23:2). I see Jesus as demonstrating God's mission to bring outsiders into the people of God. The idea that Jesus' "legitimacy" was as questionable as David's actually seems right and fitting to me, although not something of great doctrinal importance.
I am genuinely curious why someone would feel the opposite was so important.

See above.

Also, one has to wonder what sort of slander could have been brought to bear against this Messiah and his earthly mother had the Jews determined that He was born out of wedlock ?
They drag in an adulteress to have Jesus determine her fate, but then would have just blown off the fact that this man claiming to be Gods own son was born of a harlot ?

Just doesnt seem to fit the details.

 

[HuntingMan]

Why does this matter, Jesus is not born of a man? I don't understand your line of thought.

Born of a man ?
Who ever has been ?

It 'matters', poster, because Jesus is included in Josephs genealogy...its how Jesus is tied to David thru that bloodline.
If they are married, then Jesus could be included in Josephs lineage.
If not, then I dont believe that is the case and the Jews would have had a field day using this fact against Christ and His earthly mother.

Dont you remember in John where Jesus is arguing with them and they make such a big deal out of their not being born of fornication ?
These Jews would have roasted Mary and Jesus alive if they could have...theres no way they would have simply overlooked the idea that He was born of harlotry.

Tell me this...are you actually DEFENDING the idea that Jesus was born OUT of wedlock simply to push some view here about blood on the penis making a covenant rather than our VOW making it instead ....and that simply because some guy said so in a video you liked ?

 

[white dove]

I think this entire philosophy makes it appear hopeless for those who've fallen into sexual sin or, taken a step further, those who've fallen into sin of any kind. It makes it seem impossible for someone who's sinned to come out of it, sanctified and pure even after repentance. That is incorrect.

So previously unmarried couples who've sinned in the sexual realm, though they have repented and been made a new creation are still not washed clean? Though they waited to have sex until they were married (out of obedience to God), due to the fact that they previously had sex they, along with their marriage, are not consecrated nor as "God intended?" That disparage's Christ's efforts. I don't believe that to be a part of true Christianity at all.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I see
I have to admit, Liz, I cant tell when you are trying to set me up and when Im being overly paranoid
Ah...genealogies seems to make some sence
Hmm....the Holy Messiah being born into a sinful union (sex but no marriage) ?

You do believe Jesus was born of a virgin, right? So where does the sex come in?

See above.

Also, one has to wonder what sort of slander could have been brought to bear against this Messiah and his earthly mother had the Jews determined that He was born out of wedlock ?
They drag in an adulteress to have Jesus determine her fate, but then would have just blown off the fact that this man claiming to be Gods own son was born of a harlot ?

Just doesnt seem to fit the details.

From what I've read of first century history, that sort of slander was widespread in the first century. It still is among some Jews.

I don't have a problem with God providing for Mary and Jesus through Joseph. I just don't think it would have made a bit of difference to us if God hadn't. The details are the details, but if the details had been different, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. Why would it have bothered you?

 

[HuntingMan]

You do believe Jesus was born of a virgin, right?

Absolutely.

So where does the sex come in?

Sex is a normal part of the marriage covenant.
But it is not 'required' for that covenant to exist.
Ancient Hebrew betrothal was quite binding lawfully and religiously, only ending in a formal divorcement. The covenant to be husband and wife was already in place by the time hometaking occurred.

Sex comes in for Mary and Joseph simply the same way it did for my wife and I who did not consummate for about 21-22 months after 'hometaking'.
It is simply physical and emotional expression between the man and his wife. Of course, since they are married, it goes much further than that, being as God created it, sex SHOULD create a closeness between them that resembles the oneness that Adam would have had with Eve...the foreshadow of what 'one flesh' should be.

From what I've read of first century history, that sort of slander was widespread in the first century. It still is among some Jews.

The only thing Ive read and seen convincing evidence for is that once the Jews figured out that Joseph wasnt actually the biological father that they had even more grounds in their minds to dispute that Jesus was the Messiah.

I see no scriptural evidence that they believe that Mary was a harlot who had a son while UNmarried.

I don't have a problem with God providing for Mary and Jesus through Joseph.

There is VERY clear evidence in scripture, tho, that the Jews DID believe (at that time) that Jesus WAS Josephs biological son.

Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
​

I just don't think it would have made a bit of difference to us if God hadn't.

In an eternal sense, maybe not.
But if that were the case, Joseph was not even necessary for Mary to conceived as she had and then given birth.

The details are the details, but if the details had been different, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. Why would it have bothered you?

It would bother me if Mary was being perpetrated as a woman who was being made to look like a harlot....which is PRECISELY what they would have thought of a young pregnant woman with no husband.
Please, Liz...lets not play off like we dont know the culture and the scenario here.
If some teenage Hebrew woman had gotten pregant and pumped out a kid and then claimed that child was the Messiah of Israel, the Jews would have had them both for lunch.
What the Jews DID do is proof enough of that.

God provided a way for a virgin to give birth under a covenant of marriage where ALL births should be taking place (with exceptions such as the husband maybe dying during the meantime) and it is concerning to see some bogus teaching on a video that makes woman who married as virgins feel somehow superior in their marriages to remarried widows turned into something that takes the sanctity away from our Lords own birth within a lawful marriage.

 

[HuntingMan]

I think this entire philosophy makes it appear hopeless for those who've fallen into sexual sin or, taken a step further, those who've fallen into sin of any kind.
It makes it seem impossible for someone who's sinned to come out of it, sanctified and pure even after repentance. That is incorrect.
So previously unmarried couples who've sinned in the sexual realm, though they have repented and been made a new creation are still not washed clean? Though they waited to have sex until they were married (out of obedience to God), due to the fact that they previously had sex they, along with their marriage, are not consecrated nor as "God intended?" That disparage's Christ's efforts. I don't believe that to be a part of true Christianity at all.

And just think about those dear little ones who have suffered sexual abuse when younger who now cannot ever marry and have it be honored by God similarly thru no fault of their own.

And Lord help the woman like my wife whose hymen is like granite who may have to have surgery to do what comes naturally to other women.
I find the whole thing pretty disgusting, personally.
Marriage is a COVENANT....VOWS to be husband and wife.....this viewpoint degrades these vows to the level of sex.

 

[Joykins]

You may have to take this up with God, Kat... it's a biblical concept spoken of in the OT.

The OT speaks of evidence of lost virginity (on a cloth). Not that the marriage has been recognized by God thereby. The cloth is used to settle a dispute between a family whose daughter has been called unchaste, and a husband who says his new wife was not a virgin as advertised.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Absolutely.

Sex is a normal part of the marriage covenant.
But it is not 'required' for that covenant to exist.
Ancient Hebrew betrothal was quite binding lawfully and religiously, only ending in a formal divorcement. The covenant to be husband and wife was already in place by the time hometaking occurred.

Sex comes in for Mary and Joseph simply the same way it did for my wife and I who did not consummate for about 21-22 months after 'hometaking'.
It is simply physical and emotional expression between the man and his wife. Of course, since they are married, it goes much further than that, being as God created it, sex SHOULD create a closeness between them that resembles the oneness that Adam would have had with Eve...the foreshadow of what 'one flesh' should be.


The only thing Ive read and seen convincing evidence for is that once the Jews figured out that Joseph wasnt actually the biological father that they had even more grounds in their minds to dispute that Jesus was the Messiah.

I see no scriptural evidence that they believe that Mary was a harlot who had a son while UNmarried.

There is VERY clear evidence in scripture, tho, that the Jews DID believe (at that time) that Jesus WAS Josephs biological son.

Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
​

In an eternal sense, maybe not.
But if that were the case, Joseph was not even necessary for Mary to conceived as she had and then given birth.

Exactly.

As for the rest of it, well, according to Deuteronomy, David was disqualified & should have been excluded from the congregation the same way. He was a 10th generation mamzer (Deut. 23:2) and a third-generation descendant of a Moabite (Deut. 23:3). If Joseph had gone ahead and divorced her, it wouldn't have made any difference to our faith. We wouldn't have the example of St. Joseph to emulate, but the faith would be the same. God could have preserved Jesus some other way, just as God preserved Moses and plenty of other people.

As for the video, yeah, I think it's pretty "out there" too. I just don't see the fact that Mary was married as having any bearing.

 

[HuntingMan]

If Joseph had gone ahead and divorced her, it wouldn't have made any difference to our faith.

Ah, ah...I NEVER even brought DIVORCE into the picture Liz...dont even go there if thats what you are trying to claim.

*I* am talking strictly with the idea in mind that they were NEVER married to begin with, as some here might be showing IF blood on a mans genitalia is some supposed 'proof' of marriage.

I have made NO claims about what would have been the case had Joseph actually divorced Mary.

As for the video, yeah, I think it's pretty "out there" too. I just don't see the fact that Mary was married as having any bearing.

Well no wonder you dont if youre looking at it from the view that they WERE married and divorced rather than what the actual issue is here...which is some showing that they were NEVER married to begin with when Christ was born since there was no issue of blood at the time of Christs birth, meaning no marriage covenant in place.

Again, I havent said a word about divorce in this scenario.
*I* am talking about the view put forth here about blood sealing the covenant supposedly....and with that not being the case it meaning that they werent married to begin with.

 

[EternalRhyme]

The OT speaks of evidence of lost virginity (on a cloth). Not that the marriage has been recognized by God thereby. The cloth is used to settle a dispute between a family whose daughter has been called unchaste, and a husband who says his new wife was not a virgin as advertised.

My apologies, this is true, but I was referring to Genesis 2:23-24... the original intent of marriage Jesus instituted in His new covenant:

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

[katautumn]

My apologies, this is true, but I was referring to Genesis 2:23-24... the original intent of marriage Jesus instituted in His new covenant:

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

That verse always seemed very unusual to me. Are we to assume that there were people God created who lived outside of the Garden of Eden? If Adam was made from the dust of the earth and Eve was formed from Adam's rib, how would Adam have understood the concept of a man leaving his parents and being cleaved to his wife?

 

[Joykins]

My apologies, this is true, but I was referring to Genesis 2:23-24... the original intent of marriage Jesus instituted in His new covenant:

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And this says nothing about virginity.

QED.

 

[Joykins]

IIRC the Matthew narrative, Joseph would have to have divorced Mary to break the betrothal (not marriage) and in fact was going to do so before the angelic visit.

 

[HuntingMan]

IIRC the Matthew narrative, Joseph would have to have divorced Mary to break the betrothal (not marriage) and in fact was going to do so before the angelic visit.

This is, in fact, quite false.
The betrothed WIFE was as much her husbands as she would ever be. The custom simply allowed for a year (for virgins) before hometaking/consummation.

I submit that ANYONE claiming that ancient Hebrew betrothal is one iota less binding than post hometaking marriage has not actually studied the facts out in the matter.
This will help, for starters. I can dig up a ton more.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

It is precisely why if a man had sex with a betrothed (married) woman he was to be put to death, as was she if it was willingly...she WAS the wife of another man lawfully and religiously and that was only ended then by divorce.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Ah, ah...I NEVER even brought DIVORCE into the picture Liz...dont even go there if thats what you are trying to claim.

*I* am talking strictly with the idea in mind that they were NEVER married to begin with, as some here might be showing IF blood on a mans genitalia is some supposed 'proof' of marriage.

I have made NO claims about what would have been the case had Joseph actually divorced Mary.


Well no wonder you dont if youre looking at it from the view that they WERE married and divorced rather than what the actual issue is here...which is some showing that they were NEVER married to begin with when Christ was born since there was no issue of blood at the time of Christs birth, meaning no marriage covenant in place.

Again, I havent said a word about divorce in this scenario.
*I* am talking about the view put forth here about blood sealing the covenant supposedly....and with that not being the case it meaning that they werent married to begin with.

No. It makes no nevermind theologically whether Mary and Joseph were ever married or not.

Is that simple enough?

 

[EternalRhyme]

And this says nothing about virginity.

QED.

It is implied. The lack of virginity could be met with stoning. Do you deny virginity was mandated by God?

BTW, what is QED?

 

[HuntingMan]

No. It makes no nevermind theologically whether Mary and Joseph were ever married or not.

Is that simple enough?

Simple enough that youve made the claim.
The assertion, however, does tend to make me believe that you dont comprehend the seriousness of the issue of Christ having been born out of wedlock.
As much as Ive read of your posts over the last while, Im quite shocked again to see one of your recent views/responses.

I honestly would have expected someone of your level of study to fully comprehend the NEED for Christ to be born into the lawful marriage that He was born into.

 

[Joykins]

It is implied. The lack of virginity could be met with stoning. Do you deny virginity was mandated by God?

BTW, what is QED?

I deny that virginity was mandated by God to constitute a legitimate marriage.

I understand that if a betrothed woman slept with a man who was not betrothed to her, this was considered a form of *adultery* and punishable by stoning.

Note the conditions that must be met for the woman to be stoned:

She must be betrothed to another man at the time and have sex in the city (as opposed to the countryside in which case it would be regarded as a rape).

or

She must have married a man who was displeased with her and brought complaint. There is an implication that is all right for a man to expect his bride to be a virgin (but no correlating expectation on the part of the wife, nor any recourse for her); of course what the man didn't complain about didn't concern anyone else. Note that the man doesn't have to complain; it's up to him. Joseph was minded to divorce Mary quietly after all when she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit; he didn't want to have her stoned and the choice was his.

QED stands for quod erat demonstrandum which is Latin for "that which was to be demonstrated" and is usually put at the end of a mathematical proof.

 

[Joykins]

I honestly would have expected someone of your level of study to fully comprehend the NEED for Christ to be born into the lawful marriage that He was born into.

I don't understand it either. Please explain it.