-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Does the Son of God have a second witness?
- Thread starter NetWatchR
- Start date
- Status
What do you mean by 'override the marriage laws'? When were they overridden?
Curtis,
We now know that Yeshua was born of a virgin and that Joseph was not his father. But, correct me if I am wrong, we have no evidence that this fact was known or understood at the time outside of his family. (it was also revealed to the parents of John the Baptist and a few others)
The rules given to us by YHWH cover the physical act that could result in pregnancy, but they fail to address a non-physical action taken by the Lawgiver Himself.
In other words, it is unlawful for an unmarried woman to do those things which can cause pregnancy, but it is not unlawful for her to become pregnant. We also would not stone a woman whose pregnancy was due to a rape.
We now know that Yeshua was born of a virgin and that Joseph was not his father. But, correct me if I am wrong, we have no evidence that this fact was known or understood at the time outside of his family. (it was also revealed to the parents of John the Baptist and a few others)
The rules given to us by YHWH cover the physical act that could result in pregnancy, but they fail to address a non-physical action taken by the Lawgiver Himself.
In other words, it is unlawful for an unmarried woman to do those things which can cause pregnancy, but it is not unlawful for her to become pregnant. We also would not stone a woman whose pregnancy was due to a rape.
God did not have sex with Mary, hence she was still a vigin, hence neither of them had broken any laws. The impregnation was supernatural, something we can't really understand.
Sorry Steve, I've gotta disagree there.steve said:
It was voluntary, she accepted what the angel said and agreed that it should happen.
Because Joseph was unaware that the child that was in her was of God, and he assumed she had had sex with someone else since she hadn't had it with him. A valid assumption for him to make at the time.cwcsmc said:
So she was a virgin when she conceived, then Joseph was told that the child was conceived by the holy spirit (so supernaturally, by a spirit) and he should take her as his wife as he'd planned.
She was a virgin when she conceived, Joseph took her as his wife, then didn't have sex with her until after Jesus was born. (I too don't agree with her remaining a virgin her whole life.)
Anything else you want to read into this ridiculous in my mind. At some point you have to trust what the bible says and have faith. God said she was a virgin, she was a virgin. If you have issues with what the bible says then you have bigger problems.
S
smccwc
Guest
Nice points Sarah.
But your delivery could be worked on.
But your delivery could be worked on.
cwcsmc & smccwc
I completely disagree with the last post, nothing like that is happening here at all. As far as I can see, what is happening is:
- You two have come to understand plural marriage, which is great.
- You have then decided you need to dig deeper into every aspect of Christianity to ensure you haven't been misled on other matters, also a good thing.
- You are discussing this a lot behind the scenes between the two of you, which is also great.
- In those discussions you are coming to some conclusions that are not in accordance with mainstream Christianity - nothing wrong with that, provided you've got good reason to think so.
- You then post the odd question here arising from that discussion.
- However you post these without the reasoning behind it - what you think, what scriptural reason you have to think it, and what is the context of your thinking on other related issues that made you think that way. This causes confusion, and is why Lizzie asked the questions she did.
- Others post scripture on the issue, which generally supports the mainstream view.
- They then get accused of being simplistic as they are unable to support your viewpoint - but that viewpoint has not been backed up strongly from scripture, so they have no reason to support it.
The mainstream church is not wrong on everything. In fact, they're generally right. Good Christian scholars have been working for the last 2,000 years trying to understand God's word in the Bible, we can't expect to suddenly today discover truths that have somehow eluded millions throughout church history. Even polygyny has been accepted by a subset of the church throughout all ages, the size of that subset has just been quite small, but it isn't new teaching.
So reinforcing the mainstream view is not necessarily simplistic thinking. It may be correct thinking. We must judge views on whether they are based on the Bible or not, not whether they are mainstream or not.
And the last few posts by Steve and Sarah have presented an extremely solid biblical view on this issue. If you disagree, show why from the Bible, don't just accuse people of being simplistic.
I completely disagree with the last post, nothing like that is happening here at all. As far as I can see, what is happening is:
- You two have come to understand plural marriage, which is great.
- You have then decided you need to dig deeper into every aspect of Christianity to ensure you haven't been misled on other matters, also a good thing.
- You are discussing this a lot behind the scenes between the two of you, which is also great.
- In those discussions you are coming to some conclusions that are not in accordance with mainstream Christianity - nothing wrong with that, provided you've got good reason to think so.
- You then post the odd question here arising from that discussion.
- However you post these without the reasoning behind it - what you think, what scriptural reason you have to think it, and what is the context of your thinking on other related issues that made you think that way. This causes confusion, and is why Lizzie asked the questions she did.
- Others post scripture on the issue, which generally supports the mainstream view.
- They then get accused of being simplistic as they are unable to support your viewpoint - but that viewpoint has not been backed up strongly from scripture, so they have no reason to support it.
The mainstream church is not wrong on everything. In fact, they're generally right. Good Christian scholars have been working for the last 2,000 years trying to understand God's word in the Bible, we can't expect to suddenly today discover truths that have somehow eluded millions throughout church history. Even polygyny has been accepted by a subset of the church throughout all ages, the size of that subset has just been quite small, but it isn't new teaching.
So reinforcing the mainstream view is not necessarily simplistic thinking. It may be correct thinking. We must judge views on whether they are based on the Bible or not, not whether they are mainstream or not.
And the last few posts by Steve and Sarah have presented an extremely solid biblical view on this issue. If you disagree, show why from the Bible, don't just accuse people of being simplistic.
Last edited:
I differ with your opinion on "aggression" in the above postings. If one of the other men feels I am in the wrong and approaches me in agreement with you, I may edit things above, but I fear however I changed things someone would still take offence. Instead I will simply lock the thread, as it is clear no further profitable discussion will happen here.
- Status