HisBelovedMelody
Well-Known Member
BUT aren't you all so good at pointing out that Jesus spoke ARAMAIC??
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
BUT aren't you all so good at pointing out that Jesus spoke ARAMAIC??Well sorry about that. But it gets frustrating when people try to tell me that A) I am wrong on what the Bible says in Greek, and B) I don't know my own first language...
fair enough.Well sorry about that. But it gets frustrating when people try to tell me that A) I am wrong on what the Bible says in Greek, and B) I don't know my own first language...
LOL IF my husband called me Woman, he would be missing a few teeth. I am HIS WIFE. NOT his woman. That has such a bad conentation to it. Like she was kept or something...not nice either way you look at it. I am SURE that it is NOT what was meant at all.fair enough.
But if someone says is that "your woman" are you going to identify with your wife, or not? I think it's MAJOR hair splitting.
(or the writer was a moron unable to convey the message clearly.)
welll goodie for you. Proud of you. BUT aren't you all so good at pointing out that Jesus spoke ARAMAIC?? WHEN of course that suits you...otherwise it is greek...give me a break.
fair enough.
But if someone says is that "your woman" are you going to identify with your wife, or not? I think it's MAJOR hair splitting.
(or the writer was a moron unable to convey the message clearly.)
LOL IF my husband called me Woman, he would be missing a few teeth. I am HIS WIFE. NOT his woman. That has such a bad conentation to it. Like she was kept or something...not nice either way you look at it. I am SURE that it is NOT what was meant at all.
um hum. So... you think that he took her to be his girlfriend?Well my friends now ask me how my "woman" is doing...and it's my girlfriend..
um hum. So... you think that he took her to be his girlfriend?
The text implies intimate relationship. They were betrothed. Joseph wanted to go Left, angel told him to go right. Left was divorce, right was...... well, you do the math.
If he was merely her protector, the posessive would not be applied. "your."
(unless it was "your ward" or some such, but it is no such thing.)
know what? this is less a language issue than an authority issue, you realize that, don't you? You feel, (because of your belief that your church goes back to AD33, and is in the original form, and teaching, etc... which is complete poppycock) that you have the edge on the texts meaning.I was replying to your question..
Until you read the Greek text, and understand it, then do not tell me what it implies..
know what? this is less a language issue than an authority issue, you realize that, don't you? You feel, (because of your belief that your church goes back to AD33, and is in the original form, and teaching, etc... which is complete poppycock) that you have the edge on the texts meaning.
If you can actually look at that scripture and not see that he was told by the Angel to not to fear taking Mary as HIS WOMAN, his own, which, being a Righteous Jew, would compell him to make her his WIFE.... then I can't say anything else about it that will take off your "WE GOT IT RIGHT WE GOT IT RIGHTWEGOTITRIGHT" blinders.
Your position makes absolutely no sense.
know what? this is less a language issue than an authority issue, you realize that, don't you? You feel, (because of your belief that your church goes back to AD33, and is in the original form, and teaching, etc... which is complete poppycock) that you have the edge on the texts meaning.
If you can actually look at that scripture and not see that he was told by the Angel to not to fear taking Mary as HIS WOMAN, his own, which, being a Righteous Jew, would compell him to make her his WIFE.... then I can't say anything else about it that will take off your "WE GOT IT RIGHT WE GOT IT RIGHTWEGOTITRIGHT" blinders.
Your position makes absolutely no sense.
and? him being Greek means he's right, does it?You know Repentant is Greek, don't you?
Uphill,um hum. So... you think that he took her to be his girlfriend?
The text implies intimate relationship. They were betrothed. Joseph wanted to go Left, angel told him to go right. Left was divorce, right was...... well, you do the math.
If he was merely her protector, the posessive would not be applied. "your."
(unless it was "your ward" or some such, but it is no such thing.)
It's baseless speculation an insertion to state that Mary was a temple Virgin.Uphill,
Joesph was betrothed to Mary so he could care for her, not so they could have this "normal" marriage other Jews shared.
If any thing isn't in scripture, it's that notion.
Mary was a young consecrated virgin, already set apart for God's holy use before the visitation and why Joesph, a older man, was given to her, so he could care for her.
This is why she answered the angle..."but I know not a man." She was a already consecreted temple virgin.
Mary didn't understand because she never intended on having relations with anyone.
She didn't say, "when am I going to meet the man who'll be my baby dad..."
She didn't say, "but I'm engaged to Joesph, will it be his, or what will he think?"
She said, "but I know not a man." That means she never planned to have relations with anyone.
When Joesph found out she was pregnant, he was going to give her a quit divorcee but then Angle said don't be afraid, take hr as your wife.
The angle was telling him to still do what we was going to do, which is care for her. Never was the angel saying don't be afraid to have a normal Jewish marriage.
Well, I think I know more then a Hispanic does about the English language... I think the Hispanic knows much about Spanish then i do.and? him being Greek means he's right, does it?
Prove it's been created for this reason you assert?It's baseless speculation an insertion to state that Mary was a temple Virgin.
It's nowhere to be found. It's a created belief to support PV.
nothing more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?