A few questions...

[sbbqb7n16]

Also many people (mainly Catholics) interpret "firstborn" through an Americanized view.

Women in that day were nothing. Firstborn was a term for the first child in the family of the male. That culture did not give enough respect for women to be considered. So when they spoke of firstborn, they spoke of firstborn in the family of the male. Am I correct?

 

Edited to make first scentence more suited to my intentions.

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by ZooMom

The result of that is usually that Catholics come off as over-emphasizing Mary to the point of seeming worship, while non-Catholics come off as under-emphasizing Mary to the point of seeming denigration. Neither is at all an accurate representation.

ZooMom,

This is what Jesus had to say to those who praised Mary:

Luke 11:27
"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed [is] the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."

Luke 11:28
"But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

 

[linda4jesus]

Originally posted by ZooMom

What about Temple virgins?

Again, we have to go back and review the social norms during the Talmudic time.

Therapeutes had their class of aged women who led a holy life, and who were regarded as virgins because they would not marry a second time. These "virgin widows," "the pious women". On entering the order they had to take the vow of virginity—that is, that they would not marry again; wherefore they were to be of an age when remarrying was no longer thought of. Exceptionally young widows after a brief marriage were admitted when they had an "especial gift of widowhood," to be blessed.

And if he was widowed?

Looking at the social norms during the time of Mary and Joseph; every Israelite was obliged to redeem his first-born son thirty days after the latter's birth. The mother is exempt from this obligation. At the redemption the father of the child pronounces the blessing, "Blessed art thou . . . and commandeth us concerning the redemption of a son," and then also the blessing of "she-he." It was customary to prepare a feast in honor of the occasion, at which the ceremony is made impressive by a dialogue between the priest and the father of the child.

Luke tells us that Jesus was presented to the Lord within eight days of his birth. This wouldn't have occured if Jesus were not Joseph's first child.

In Luke 2 21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Again, what about the possibility that Joseph was a widower? Is there a reason that you do not consider that a plausible scenario?

See Above

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Also many people (mainly Catholics) interpret "firstborn" through an Americanized view.

Which is?

Women in that day were nothing. Firstborn was a term for the first child in the family of the male. That culture did not give enough respect for women to be considered. So when they spoke of firstborn, they spoke of firstborn in the family of the male. Am I correct?

 

Edited to make first scentence more suited to my intentions.

Do you have a source for this? I find it difficult to beleive that Jewish society, even if their cultural practices differed from ours today, didn't honor and respect women. Even God's Law impels us to obey our father *and* our mother. And does Scripture reference Christ as the firstborn of Joseph or of Mary?

Keep the thoughts coming!

 

[linda4jesus]

Sorry about that, meant to post it.....but forgot.

Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by Auntie
ZooMom,

This is what Jesus had to say to those who praised Mary:

Luke 11:27
"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed [is] the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked."

Luke 11:28
"But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

Hi, Auntie. Please consider that Christ was not rebuking the woman for praising Mary, but rather redirecting her praise to those attributes of Mary that were truly deserving of praise. IOW, her reception of God's word and her obedience to it.

Peace be with you.

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by linda4jesus
Again, we have to go back and review the social norms during the Talmudic time.

Therapeutes had their class of aged women who led a holy life, and who were regarded as virgins because they would not marry a second time. These "virgin widows," "the pious women". On entering the order they had to take the vow of virginity—that is, that they would not marry again; wherefore they were to be of an age when remarrying was no longer thought of. Exceptionally young widows after a brief marriage were admitted when they had an "especial gift of widowhood," to be blessed.

So, there were no young Temple virgins, or should I say that it was not the norm for Temple virgins to be young girls? The Catholic Tradition tells us that Mary entered the Temple at a very young age, and that when she reached her womanhood, the preists of the Temple sought a husband, or more accurately a caretaker, for Mary so that her monthly courses would not defile the Temple. Were the older women past their courses so that this was not a problem? Enjoying this info very much. Thank you.

Looking at the social norms during the time of Mary and Joseph; every Israelite was obliged to redeem his first-born son thirty days after the latter's birth. The mother is exempt from this obligation. At the redemption the father of the child pronounces the blessing, "Blessed art thou . . . and commandeth us concerning the redemption of a son," and then also the blessing of "she-he." It was customary to prepare a feast in honor of the occasion, at which the ceremony is made impressive by a dialogue between the priest and the father of the child.

Luke tells us that Jesus was presented to the Lord within eight days of his birth. This wouldn't have occured if Jesus were not Joseph's first child.

Ok, so a 'first-born' was presented 30 days after birth and subsequent children presented 8 days? Do you know the reason for this?


Peace.

 

[linda4jesus]

Originally posted by ZooMom
So, there were no young Temple virgins, or should I say that it was not the norm for Temple virgins to be young girls? The Catholic Tradition tells us that Mary entered the Temple at a very young age, and that when she reached her womanhood, the preists of the Temple sought a husband, or more accurately a caretaker, for Mary so that her monthly courses would not defile the Temple. Were the older women past their courses so that this was not a problem?

I know that Catholic tradition tells Catholics that Mary entered a temple at a very young age. I do not hold to this theory. I believe the Catholic Church had an agenda in presenting this theory, the agenda was to elevate Mary to a higher rank then she actually was. Women were considered property of their father and husband. They had no rights whatsoever.

The word virgin in that time period meant any female who chose not to have sexual relations again.

Ok, so a 'first-born' was presented 30 days after birth and subsequent children presented 8 days? Do you know the reason for this?

The first born had to be presented WITHIN 30 days after birth. Jesus was presented in 8 days. Therefore he was presented with the 30 day window according to the Law. Subsequent children were not presented; only the first born of the father.

I am not getting this information from a protestant web site, I'm using a Jewish history site.

Also, ZooMom....just because the Catholic Church says it's true....doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by ZooMom
Hi, Auntie. Please consider that Christ was not rebuking the woman for praising Mary, but rather redirecting her praise to those attributes of Mary that were truly deserving of praise. IOW, her reception of God's word and her obedience to it.

Peace be with you.

Hi to you too, ZooMom. I don't think Jesus was rebuking the woman, but rather, correcting her about WHO the blessed are. Jesus says, "blessed are THEY that hear the word of God, and keep it." The "blessed" are ALL of us, who hear the word of God and keep it.

The woman was expressing her feelings of praise for Mary alone. Jesus answered her by taking the focus off Mary, and directed our focus on the Word of God.

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by linda4jesus
I know that Catholic tradition tells Catholics that Mary entered a temple at a very young age. I do not hold to this theory. I believe the Catholic Church had an agenda in presenting this theory, the agenda was to elevate Mary to a higher rank then she actually was.

Ah! Can you tell me why you believe that? And, aside from the Catholic agenda theory, why you think that Mary entering the Temple at a young age is not a plausible theory.

Women were considered property of their father and husband. They had no rights whatsoever.

I'm sorry, I don't see the correlation.

The word virgin in that time period meant any female who chose not to have sexual relations again.

But, if they had no rights, how could they be allowed to choose this for themselves? Wouldn't a male relative have the authority to do that?

The first born had to be presented WITHIN 30 days after birth. Jesus was presented in 8 days. Therefore he was presented with the 30 day window according to the Law. Subsequent children were not presented; only the first born of the father.

Oh, I see. So you are using this to support the belief that Jesus was the first-born of *Joseph*. I get it now. Nice point. I'd like for you to check out this site, http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/pidyan.html . Please get back to me with your thoughts on how this site addresses what you just told me.

I am not getting this information from a protestant web site, I'm using a Jewish history site.

And I do appreciate that. But I have no objections to whatever site you want to use that you feel is objective and accurate.

Also, ZooMom....just because the Catholic Church says it's true....doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

Oh, I know. I don't take anything at face value. I just haven't yet found cause to doubt her after almost three years of researching. That isn't to say that there aren't other views out there that aren't plausible, your own views show that you have given the matter attentive thought and research.

Peace be with you!

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by Auntie
Hi to you too, ZooMom. I don't think Jesus was rebuking the woman, but rather, correcting her about WHO the blessed are. Jesus says, "blessed are THEY that hear the word of God, and keep it." The "blessed" are ALL of us, who hear the word of God and keep it.

And Mary was definitely one of those.

The woman was expressing her feelings of praise for Mary alone. Jesus answered her by taking the focus off Mary, and directed our focus on the Word of God.

And I will maintain that Jesus merely shifted the woman's focus from common attributes to Godly ones, and that this doesn't take the focus from Mary at all, but merely lets us see her in a clearer light. As one who heard the word of God and kept it. Would that the same could be said of me with such conviction.

I think I'm skirting the edges of a debate with my answers to this, so I will say no more on this particular verse. God bless you, Auntie.

Peace!

 

[ZooMom]

edit...not quote...edit...not quote...

 

[linda4jesus]

Originally posted by linda4jesus
I know that Catholic tradition tells Catholics that Mary entered a temple at a very young age. I do not hold to this theory. I believe the Catholic Church had an agenda in presenting this theory, the agenda was to elevate Mary to a higher rank then she actually was.

Originally posted by ZooMom
Ah! Can you tell me why you believe that? And, aside from the Catholic agenda theory, why you think that Mary entering the Temple at a young age is not a plausible theory.

I don't hold that theory as plausible because she would have been under the government of her father at that age. Her marriage to Jospeh had probably been arranged since birth.

Originally posted by linda4jesus
The word virgin in that time period meant any female who chose not to have sexual relations again.

Originally posted by ZooMom
But, if they had no rights, how could they be allowed to choose this for themselves? Wouldn't a male relative have the authority to do that?

Women who became widows during this time didn't have a whole lot of options, they either remarried or became 'virgins' and lived the rest of their lives serving God in an order somewhere. Edited to add, or became prostitutes...

Originally posted by linda4jesus
The first born had to be presented WITHIN 30 days after birth. Jesus was presented in 8 days. Therefore he was presented with the 30 day window according to the Law. Subsequent children were not presented; only the first born of the father.

Originally posted by ZooMom
Oh, I see. So you are using this to support the belief that Jesus was the first-born of *Joseph*. I get it now. Nice point. I'd like for you to check out this site, http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/pidyan.html . Please get back to me with your thoughts on how this site addresses what you just told me.

Great site ZooMom, thanks!

I found the following on the website that you referred me to about why only boy children were 'redeemed' and who were to redeem them.

"Therefore, only boy children were in any danger at all from that particular Plague, and thus they were saved by the Redemption of the Firstborn that Hashem commanded their fathers to perform".

Luke tells us that Jesus was presented to the Lord within eight days of his birth by Joseph.

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by linda4jesus
I don't hold that theory as plausible because she would have been under the government of her father at that age. Her marriage to Jospeh had probably been arranged since birth.

Interesting! So, you don't think it likely that her father could have had her dedicated to the Temple as a child?

Women who became widows during this time didn't have a whole lot of options, they either remarried or became 'virgins' and lived the rest of their lives serving God in an order somewhere. Edited to add, or became prostitutes...

And did they do this of their own choice or at the direction of a male relative? I just thought of something! This could be a very good point on the whole 'Perpetual Virginity' topic! I think we are pretty certain that Mary didn't remarry or become a prostitute ( :o ), so under the Jewish definition of 'virgin' she could very well have remained a 'virgin' for the remainder of her life, even if you don't subscribe to the Catholic position. Cool!

Great site ZooMom, thanks!

You're welcome.

I found the following on the website that you referred me to about why only boy children were 'redeemed' and who were to redeem them.

"Therefore, only boy children were in any danger at all from that particular Plague, and thus they were saved by the Redemption of the Firstborn that Hashem commanded their fathers to perform".

Luke tells us that Jesus was presented to the Lord within eight days of his birth by Joseph.

Yes, the firstborn are to be 'redeemed' by the Jewish father. But what I thought was interesting is that the 'first-born' status is conveyed by the *mother*. And I was curious as to how that information affected your position of Jesus being the first-born of *Joseph*.

 

[linda4jesus]

Originally posted by ZooMom
Interesting! So, you don't think it likely that her father could have had her dedicated to the Temple as a child?

I don't think so.

And did they do this of their own choice or at the direction of a male relative? I just thought of something! This could be a very good point on the whole 'Perpetual Virginity' topic! I think we are pretty certain that Mary didn't remarry or become a prostitute ( :o ), so under the Jewish definition of 'virgin' she could very well have remained a 'virgin' for the remainder of her life, even if you don't subscribe to the Catholic position. Cool!

Yep.....even though they weren't 'virgins' (as we think) she could have been a virgin under the Jewish definition.

Yes, the firstborn are to be 'redeemed' by the Jewish father. But what I thought was interesting is that the 'first-born' status is conveyed by the *mother*. And I was curious as to how that information affected your position of Jesus being the first-born of *Joseph*.

Jewish law has always been that you have to be born of a Jewish mother in order to be considered Jewish. I believe that Jesus was Joseph's first born as well.

This has really been interesting, I've learned alot about Jewish history while doing my research. Thanks for that site again, it has alot of great info on it.

 

[nodrog]

1) How old do Protestants think that Mary was at the time of the Annunciation, and why? --- Old enough to have a baby and young enough not to already have one. My quess would be between 14 to 18

2)How old do you think Joseph was at the time of his engagement to Mary, and why? --- No idea.

3)Do you believe that Mary was Joseph's first wife, and why?---No idea.

4)Do you believe that the brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in the Scriptures were younger than Christ, and why? --- I believe they were his younger siblings.  Mary and Joe were married . God joins couples in marrage and sexual relations are an important part of a normal healthy marriage.  I don't think it would be normal, heathy or very fair to Joseph for Mary to have remained a virgin. Something that out of the ordinary would have been mentioned in at least one of the Gospels. Instead we there are referance to siblings with no explaination that they were half brothers and sisters.

Hope that helps.

 

[nodrog]

Women who became widows during this time didn't have a whole lot of options, they either remarried or became 'virgins' and lived the rest of their lives serving God in an order somewhere. Edited to add, or became prostitutes...

Interesting theory.

Joe was alive long enough to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt for a few years. Then they made a trip to Jerusalem when Jesus got left behind and they found him in the temple. Joseph was alive at least long enough to teach Jesus the carpentry trade.  Probably about 12 years that we know of ??  I would say plenty of opportunity for Joseph and Mary to have a average sized family.

 

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by linda4jesus
I don't think so.

Why?

Jewish law has always been that you have to be born of a Jewish mother in order to be considered Jewish. I believe that Jesus was Joseph's first born as well.

Why?


I'm starting to sound like my 3 yr old! Tell me if it's as frustrating to you as it is to me. I know that you've already given me an answer for part of this, but I would really like for you to dig a bit deeper. I guess I'm looking for the 'whole story'.

This has really been interesting, I've learned alot about Jewish history while doing my research. Thanks for that site again, it has alot of great info on it.

I'm enjoying it too. I'm so glad that we've been able to discuss this with patience and kindness.

Peace!

 

[ZooMom]

Originally posted by nodrog
1) How old do Protestants think that Mary was at the time of the Annunciation, and why? --- Old enough to have a baby and young enough not to already have one. My quess would be between 14 to 18

Good enough.

2)How old do you think Joseph was at the time of his engagement to Mary, and why? --- No idea.

None? Not even a mental picture or a hazarded guess?

3)Do you believe that Mary was Joseph's first wife, and why?---No idea.

Does that mean that you are open to the idea that Joseph could have been a widower with grown children at the time of his engagement to Mary?

4)Do you believe that the brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in the Scriptures were younger than Christ, and why? --- I believe they were his younger siblings.  Mary and Joe were married . God joins couples in marrage and sexual relations are an important part of a normal healthy marriage.  I don't think it would be normal, heathy or very fair to Joseph for Mary to have remained a virgin. Something that out of the ordinary would have been mentioned in at least one of the Gospels. Instead we there are referance to siblings with no explaination that they were half brothers and sisters.

Fair enough. Can you tell me why you think that Mary and Joseph's marriage was normal?


Thanks for the answers! Peace be with you.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
Here's a thought... Luke 2:44

"Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends."

Why not the mention of "among their children" ?? If you are a parent, isn't that the first place you look? However, if Jesus was the only child there at the time... you can't look among other children for him. You just look for him.

If Jesus had older brothers and sisters, where were they during all this?

You know its occured to me from time to time... if Mary did not have other young ones to preoccupy her, chances are pretty slim she would also not have overlooked her one and only son Jesus, and the fact that he was missing from the crew... something peroccupied her to overlook his presence that day, and if any of you are mothers, well you should also know that your children are the closet thing to your heart... my feeling is that the brothers and sisters mentioned are very much Mary and Joseph's own... no mention of them is made during the filght to Egypt either, so they had to come afterward, neither is any mention of them made at Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. And something peroccupied Mary when the forgot him at the temple, the only thing I know of that can draw a mothers attention away from her oldest child, is a younger one or two as the case may be... just a thought...