|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Our Lady's marriage
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, that's not all.
It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.
That's all.
No it isn't all. You're not talking about a specific incidence, you are talking about bias of this website.
Fair enough have that position but don't try to change what you've already said.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, that's not all.
It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.
That's all.
No it isn't all. You're not talking about a specific incidence, you are talking about bias of this website.
Fair enough have that position but don't try to change what you've already said.
Steady on ...
It doesn't bother me in the least if Kaplan believes there's an inbuilt bias on this website. To an extent, I think he's onto something in that any position based on a definitive set of principles - be it evangelicalism or ultramontane Roman Catholicism - is going to become a target on a 'magazine of Christian Unrest.'
If it wasn't an Unrestful site then evangelicalism would get off scot-free.
I wouldn't mind at all if Kaplan could demonstrate that whatever 'gratuitous' comments I've made - using 'puerile language' - are without substance or well wide of the mark.
If they are, then demonstrate as much. Don't throw a wobbly and bleat about the bush.
I really don't know what more I can do to balance things out. I start threads specifically to praise aspects of evangelicalism and other traditions. I call leo out on what I see as a facile criticism of evangelicalism based on one - possibly misunderstood - example - and he still jumps up and down like a Morris Dancer with his arse on fire.
But, as Barnabus has reminded us, this is extending the tangent.
I will start another thread.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steady on ...
It doesn't bother me in the least if Kaplan believes there's an inbuilt bias on this website. To an extent, I think he's onto something in that any position based on a definitive set of principles - be it evangelicalism or ultramontane Roman Catholicism - is going to become a target on a 'magazine of Christian Unrest.'
It doesn't bother me either, I think he is right and that there is inbuilt bias.
But now he's trying to say that his issue is with specific cases of anti-Evangelical bias.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.
I think I have one more thing to say on the word "brothers." I think people here are being grossly anachronistic when they project the modern idea of the nuclear family back onto the Holy Family. Pre-Industrial Revolution, families weren't just mom and dad and their offspring.
It's not grasping at straws (or whatever the insult was) to suggest that when the text refers to Jesus' "brothers" that it doesn't mean just children of Mary's womb. Brothers, cousins, uncles, nephews, children of that "aunt" whom nobody is quite sure how she's related to us but she's always been part of the family -- in short all these kids of roughly the same age who are related somehow and hang out together -- they're just "brothers." The people back then didn't bother inventing a word for this passel of kids because they already had a word to use. Brothers.
Of course it went unanswered that the Bible refers to Lot both as Abraham's nephew and his brother. Is it wrong in one of those places? No. "Brother" has a broader range of meaning than we're giving it credit for.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Who's 'we'?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not grasping at straws (or whatever the insult was) to suggest that when the text refers to Jesus' "brothers" that it doesn't mean just children of Mary's womb. Brothers, cousins, uncles, nephews, children of that "aunt" whom nobody is quite sure how she's related to us but she's always been part of the family -- in short all these kids of roughly the same age who are related somehow and hang out together -- they're just "brothers." The people back then didn't bother inventing a word for this passel of kids because they already had a word to use. Brothers.
Of course it went unanswered that the Bible refers to Lot both as Abraham's nephew and his brother. Is it wrong in one of those places? No. "Brother" has a broader range of meaning than we're giving it credit for.
Absolutely true of course. And IIRC at least some of the epistles are addressed to "Brothers" without there being any kind of implication of sibling relationships.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or genetic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...
So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...
So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
I wasn't arguing that they were, only that pointing out the possibility they weren't isn't grasping straws or desperation, as some here so fondly assert.
The argument seems to be, "I have made up my mind, and any counter-argument that brings up something I hadn't considered is grasping at straws."
[ 05. July 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.
I do not know the answer to that. Nor do I see how it matters in this discussion. Can you unpack that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...
So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
I can't afford to pay for ever increasing sigma circles of traditional improbability beyond acceptance that others must.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It would matter as if it wasn't considered legally binding then it could be taken to indicate that Mary and Joseph had 'marital relations' in the 'normal' way after Jesus was born.
That's what Nick is driving at, I think.
I don't know the answer either. It strikes me as odd, though, that if it is the case, then Jewish apologists haven't been using it for hundreds of years to play down the claims of the Christian Church/es.
Perhaps they have been doing and I'm simply not aware of it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
I do not know the answer to that. Nor do I see how it matters in this discussion. Can you unpack that?
It was the question originally asked in the OP.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.
I do not know the answer to that. Nor do I see how it matters in this discussion. Can you unpack that?
Sure. It was the actual question asked in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Quick question (hosts: feel free to move to e.g. kerygmania if that seems a more suitable place for it).
Under Jewish law/ custom as applicable at the time of Our Lord's birth, did marriage require- as it broadly does today in at least Western Canon Law and indeed in English Law- consummation? What set me wondering was a discussion on social media about the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM.
I thought this was the sort of place where someone would be bound to know what answer.
Thanks.
(Sorry; missed Nicolemr's post, but since the unpacking question was asked of me, I'll leave my answer.)
[ 05. July 2017, 20:13: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the BVM side of things, I'm not sure there's anything more we can say there that hasn't been said before the tangent took over.
Did anyone ever answer the central question of whether, under Hebrew/Mosaic law, a marriage could be considered valid and binding without consummation? If that question was answered, I missed it.
I don't know if others have answered the question, but here is what I could find based on a quick google search. No idea if these sources are reliable:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/weddings-and-marriage-traditions-in-ancient-israel
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm
It appears that the betrothal made a couple legally married. It was a contract for the groom to pay a price to the bride's father for the bride. Once this price was paid and whatever appropriate amount of time had passed, the bride would come to live with the husband and the marriage would be consummated. Although the BVM and St. Joseph were legally married at their betrothal (which preceded the , sex and procreation were considered essential parts of marriage. I do not know if non-consummation was grounds for divorce (I think husbands could divorce wives but not the other way around?), but I can imagine that it could have been.
I don't know if any legal scholar even considered back then if a couple chose to forego having sex whether or not they would continue to be legally married after their betrothal. I think Jesus was VERY transgressive in choosing not to marry while also presenting himself as a religious authority figure. So it makes sense to me that the BVM and St. Joseph may have made a similarly transgressive decision to not have sex, although I don't think there is evidence in Scripture that they did so, and there is evidence to the contrary depending on how you interpret the use of the word brothers.
I believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM, but not because I think it was necessary that the body/womb that carried Our Lord and Savior needed to be set apart or anything like that. I think lifelong continence was something the the BVM, like her Son, chose as part of her mission in life, and that St. Joseph agreed to not have sex during his marriage to her (he may very well have been married before and had children then) as part of his mission in life.
On the other hand, I believe that the human relationship to God can be very sexual - not just sensual - and I realize that the institutions of mainstream Christianity might consider this heresy. The BVM is thought about in ways in which she appears to be simultaneously the Mother, Daughter, Spouse, Sister, and Friend of God. So while I don't think she ever had sex with another human being (or any other created thing, if you have a dirty mind), I don't think that means she - or any other lifelong continent person - was/is necessarily sexually deprived at all!
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...
So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
I can't afford to pay for ever increasing sigma circles of traditional improbability beyond acceptance that others must.
Well, you can also pay your money and make your choice not to believe any of it ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If all parties to the contract were content, who could declare it void? Why? How? Googlin' reveals NOTHING about proof or affirmation of consummation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, none of which 'proves' either way that the 'brothers' and 'sisters' referred to in the Gospels were or weren't Jesus's siblings ...
So we - all of us 'we' - pays our money and we makes our choice ...
I can't afford to pay for ever increasing sigma circles of traditional improbability beyond acceptance that others must.
Well, you can also pay your money and make your choice not to believe any of it ...
Indeed, I can't choose not to believe the Incarnation, I buy that, no matter what strange baggage train, strung out for centuries and millennia, comes after that. Some strange even 'canonical' stuff comes along pretty quick. But I can't buy it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, that's not all.
It trivialises the issue, uses puerile language, and misrepresents the facts.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am not trying to prevent criticism of evangelicalism (and couldn't, even if I wanted to), but when I consider the criticism is unfair, I will exercise my right to say so.
That's all.
No it isn't all. You're not talking about a specific incidence, you are talking about bias of this website.
Fair enough have that position but don't try to change what you've already said.
I thought that was understood, but if it makes you happy I will spell it out: Kaplan Corday thinks that there is an anti-evangelical bias on the Ship of Fools website.
Unlikely that that has left anyone gasping in disbelief.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't mind at all if Kaplan could demonstrate that whatever 'gratuitous' comments I've made - using 'puerile language' - are without substance or well wide of the mark.
References to "poor ickle evangelicalism" are gratuitous and puerile.
Allegations that I think evangelicalism is "so sacrosanct that nobody is allowed to have a go at it" are simply untrue.
[ 05. July 2017, 23:31: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the most that can be said is that Luther's revolt gave birth to Protestantism which, in turn was a contributory factor to the Enlightenment and also to the emergence of evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism certainly emerged later as a particular variant of Protestantism, but the fact that its central emphases were a continuation of Luther's means that it is quite legitimate to see Luther as its founder.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think the most that can be said is that Luther's revolt gave birth to Protestantism which, in turn was a contributory factor to the Enlightenment and also to the emergence of evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism certainly emerged later as a particular variant of Protestantism, but the fact that its central emphases were a continuation of Luther's means that it is quite legitimate to see Luther as its founder.
If its central emphases aren't the incarnation and the Trinity then it's idolatrous. If they are, then its founder is much older than Luther. This strikes me as an absurd way to define who the founder of a tradition is. Luther had nothing like Evangelicalism in mind when he defected from Rome.
[ 06. July 2017, 00:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Luther had nothing like Evangelicalism in mind when he defected from Rome.
He did not even want to defect, initially.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If its central emphases aren't the incarnation and the Trinity then it's idolatrous.
The Incarnation and Trinity were givens, over which he had no argument with Rome, and therefore had no reason to mention
quote:
Luther had nothing like Evangelicalism in mind when he defected from Rome.
No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.
[ 06. July 2017, 03:53: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.
No other Protestant sects share those distinctive things with Luther? Just you guys?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's nonsense, Kaplan. Luther is no more the 'founder' of evangelicalism than Wesley is the 'founder' of Pentecostalism.
Of course, there are antecedents for certain core evangelical beliefs in both Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian theology but that's different to him being 'The founder'.
I once had a conversation with Tom Smail the veteran Church of Scotland renewalist. He told me that his spiritual heritage lay in the Reformed tradition of Barth and Torrance rather than in evangelicalism. He regarded the evangelicals as 'aunt and uncle rather than mum and dad.'
If I've teased you with somewhat scoffing and 'puerile' jabs then that's wrong of me to do so, but I've become increasingly impatient with what I take to be your broad-brush and sweeping generalisations.
You aren't drawing lines through history with a calligraphic pen but a magic marker, a dirty great big thick tar brush or a paint roller.
You've also been reacting to mild criticisms or allusions to evangelicalism as if they presage some kind of pogrom against evangelicals.
Hence my frustration.
Frankly, I've sometimes wondered whether I've been dealing with Jamat here rather than the Kaplan I know of old.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Doh! I meant in each of 'Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian' theologies not 'both' ...
On the antecedent thing ...
Wesley's been described as the 'grandfather of Pentecostalism.'
Fair enough, to an extent ...
Equally, whilst it's fair to say that Luther is some broad tribal antecedent to some extent, he's hardly the 'founder' of evangelicalism.
That's not how these things work.
Sure, he kick-started the Reformation but I'd argue that evangelicalism owes more to Calvin and Zwingli, with later Wesleyan input, than it does to Luther.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think this just comes back to this concept of tiny worldviews. Things that are self-evident to a [particular kind of] evangelical look completely different to everyone else because they've created special terms and ideas that make no sense to anyone else.
That said, I think it is possible to say that Luther was a common ancestor of both Evangelicals and other Protestants. And it is probably true to say that Evangelicals took, riffed and and expanded some of the ideas from Luther in the developing understanding of Evangelicalism. I don't think it is a contradiction to say that other non-Evangelical Protestants see him as a key figure in their own theological development, because these things are a process of evolution and we've got to quite different places despite starting from the same place at the Reformation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course, which is another way of saying what I've been trying to say ... that it's entirely legitimate to see Luther as the common ancestor of evangelical and other Protestants but not as a 'founder' in the sense that this word implies ...
I'm sure Kaplan doesn't mean it like this, but it rather suggests some kind of Henry Ford type role in the foundation of Ford Motors ...
The issue I have with Kaplan, on his current form, not generally, is the lack of chiaroscuro.
He seems to be painting in very broad brush strokes, rather like Jamat.
Which is why I've been giving him a hard-time on this thread because I think he can do a lot better than that.
Just sayin'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
More guessing at marriage practice in Ancient Israel, which doesn't quite answer the OP...
The betrothal, which as I said was a contract between the groom and the bride's father for the "purchase" of the bride, made the wedding legal in Jewish law. However, by the time of Christ the bride price in the betrothal contract was merely a formality, if what I have read is true, and would only be paid to the bride's father in case of divorce or the death of the groom after marriage. By this point in Jewish history, dowries, which are payments from the bride's father to the groom (in the opposite direction of the bride price), were much more significant.
At some point, the bride would be brought to the groom's house in a festive procession and there would be a wedding feast, after which the bride would live with the groom.
One source I read said that this procession to the groom's house and wedding feast occurred AFTER an intermediate ritual consummation of the marriage that occurred at the bride's father's house. The groom would come to the bride's father's house, there would be a ritual consummation of the marriage that the source claimed would occur with family watching, and a husband could demand the bed sheets be examined afterwards for "proof" of the bride's "virginity" at the time of marriage (we all know now that this isn't how virginity works), but if the bride was found to be a virgin after being challenged in this way, the husband could never divorce her (if she was found to not have been a virgin, she would be stoned).
However, this source seems to be pretty Christian fundamentalist, so I am not sure if it is reliable. Even if these things were true in pre-Exile Israel, they may not have been practiced in the same way, or at all, by the time Christ was alive. Still, Christ does talk about a bride waiting for the Bridegroom to come (as does the Song of Solomon), rather than the Bridegroom waiting for the Bride to arrive in a procession, so it could be that in Jesus' time a ritual consummation did occur in the bride's father's house before the bridal procession and the wedding feast. I just do not know.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
One source I read said that Halakhic scholars considered consummation essential for the validity of a marriage, but I do not know if a) this was the case in Jesus' time or was a ruling based on later Rabbinic scholarship or b) if "validity" means the same thing as it would later in the RCC and in the marriage law of European countries
I don't know if Jewish law at the time differentiated between annulment and divorce. If a marriage was never consummated because of the bride's refusal to do so, the husband could ask for a divorce, in which case the bride's father might ask for the bride price to be paid to him (as I said in the last post, it appears the bride price was rarely paid but the time of Christ). Would the husband be able to argue that the betrothal contract (with all its stipulations about what happens with the bride's property, etc., in case of divorce was "void" because of nonconsummation? Would this be the same as saying the marriage never took place?
Ancient Jewish law did not provide for a way for a wife to divorce her husband, but if he refused to consummate the marriage, could she claim that the betrothal contract was void (or that the marriage was "invalid") and therefore be able to return to her father's house, be considered unmarried, and marry again?
Absent any disputes over the legitimacy of children conceived in a marriage (since there was no sex in the marriage), arguing over whether a marriage was valid or not (or whether the betrothal contract had been voided or not, and whether or not this was the same thing) would be an argument over bride prices, dowries, property, the husband's duty to provide materially for his wife, the wife's freedom to leave her husband and marry again, etc. It would also touch upon the morality of a woman living with a man - but if they had gone through the formalities of obtaining a betrothal contract and did NOT have sex, it would be odd for anyone to accuse them of "living in sin." Their families would likely be very upset, especially the husband's family, to whom the offspring of the marriage would belong (and who especially wanted sons).
Therefore, absent the two families' expectations of children, any disputes over property and money, and the overall inconceivability in Jewish society at the time of a voluntarily sexless marriage, I do not know if the BVM and St. Joseph would have been considered to be a couple with an "invalid" marriage and if common decency would have required, if the two families did not force the couple to separate, that religious or secular authorities to do so. This is because modern language in the West about invalid marriages and annulments is heavily influenced by the RCC's theology of marriage.
So, to answer the OP, would Jewish society at the time consider a sexless marriage between the BVM and St. Joseph to be bizarre, irresponsible, a negation of the duty of husband and wife, etc? Yes, yes, and yes. Could it be used as grounds for either the husband or wife to declare the betrothal contract void and not need to fulfill the legal requirements of divorce? Perhaps. Would this mean that the marriage had never taken place? I do not know if Jewish society though about these things in that way (you have to admit, marriages that appear very real, long-lasting, and loving, that are said to have never taken place is something of an artifact of the legalism that the RCC inherited from Roman law rather than Jewish law).
And, all of that said, even if Jewish law at the time would have considered the BVM and St. Joseph unmarried, does that matter? It makes it appear unlikely that something like not being considered married by society would not have been mentioned, or at least defended, in Scripture or in other early Church writings. I find so much of Jesus' life to be incompatible with Jewish or Roman morality at the time (and not in accordance with the text of prophecy about the Messiah) - and also completely improbable based on modern science - that I am not bothered by yet one more very hard thing to believe about the BVM. Using Occam's Razor to examine religious beliefs seems ludicrous to me. Religious beliefs are based upon at least some degree of irrationality, and where to draw the line between religious tenets that can or cannot be attacked with rational argument is different for every person.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No doubt, but the distinctive doctrines which were central to his break with Rome were and remain central to evangelicalism's distinctiveness, so he was its founder malgre lui.
No other Protestant sects share those distinctive things with Luther? Just you guys?
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
That should not come as any startling novelty.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, which is another way of saying what I've been trying to say ... that it's entirely legitimate to see Luther as the common ancestor of evangelical and other Protestants but not as a 'founder' in the sense that this word implies ...
Founder, ancestor...
Thoughtful evangelical writers on evangelical history (eg Bebbington, Stott, Noll) all acknowledge Luther's original and indispensable role.
Any history of modern evangelicalism must, after the NT, start with at least something more than a nod in Luther's direction to be taken seriously.
Which is not to say that modern evangelicalism, or even early eighteenth century evangelicalism, sprang fully formed from Luther like Athene from Zeus's head.
It is to say no Luther, no evangelicalism (unless you want to wander of into alternative "what if" history).
quote:
The issue I have with Kaplan, on his current form, not generally, is the lack of chiaroscuro.
He seems to be painting in very broad brush strokes, rather like Jamat.
Which is why I've been giving him a hard-time on this thread because I think he can do a lot better than that.
"Can do better...."
I choose to be amused rather than pissed off by your pompous assumption of a schoolmasterly role in assessing the performances of the Ship's contributors.
Well I'm sure that we'll all try a lot harder next term, Sir, because we're all too aware that kindly meant rebukes and exhortations can give way to lines, or even (Molesworthian orthography) KANES!
[ 06. July 2017, 23:10: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Thanks for all of the information stonespring. It's all interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
That should not come as any startling novelty.
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith? Really?
Yeah, the Reformed tradition and other Protestant traditions aside, that does come as a startlingly novel idea.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith?
Depends on whether you define evangelical in doctrinal terms, or more broadly, but at a doctrinal level most evangelicals would regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals.
I certainly do.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from Lutheranism—the branch of Protestantism that Luther actually was the founder of—by the evangelical section's adherence to Luther's emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in revelation and on justification by faith?
Depends on whether you define evangelical in doctrinal terms, or more broadly, but at a doctrinal level most evangelicals would regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals.
I certainly do.
Well, of course it depends on how you define "Evangelical," which can mean anything from simply Protestant or Lutheran to the more contemporary Bebbington Quadrilateral or American conservative definitions.
So how are you defining it? Because most Lutherans I know would not consider themselves "evangelical" according to the definition that you have seemed to be using.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
Let's make sure I'm understanding you. Any Protestant group that emphasizes the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith, is Evangelical?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So how are you defining it? Because most Lutherans I know would not consider themselves "evangelical" according to the definition that you have seemed to be using.
Evangelicalism can involve many features, but its two most basic distinctive features vis a vis other Christian traditions (including some forms of liberal Protestantism, and heights of the candle Protestantism) are its soteriology (justification by faith) and its theology of revelation (primacy of Scripture).
That doesn't mean that other Christian traditions don't contain elements of both these distinctives, but they don't prioritise them, or identify by them, to the same degree.
There are therefore good grounds for evangelicals to regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals, and the Lutherans I know self-identify as evangelicals, though of course other Lutherans would not.
Recognition is not always reciprocal.
For example, I regard the RC and Orthodox as my fellow Christians, but doubtless there are members of both traditions who would not think that I am a Christian at all.
[ 07. July 2017, 02:40: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Certainly the evangelical section of Protestantism is distinguished from the rest of Protestantism by, amongst other things, Luther's emphases on the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith.
Let's make sure I'm understanding you. Any Protestant group that emphasizes the primacy of Scripture in revelation, and justification by faith, is Evangelical?
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth? You could theoretically be evangelical in any context. Greenies are pretty evangelical.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Evangelicalism can involve many features, but its two most basic distinctive features vis a vis other Christian traditions (including some forms of liberal Protestantism, and heights of the candle Protestantism) are its soteriology (justification by faith) and its theology of revelation (primacy of Scripture).
I'm struggling to think of any Protestant tradition that doesn't teach justification by faith or the primacy of Scripture as revelation. This definition seems so broad as to be meaningless. You seem to be saying simply that evangelical = historic Protestantism. While that is certainly an historically defensible usage of the word, it doesn't really reflect common contemporary usage.
Perhaps cultural/geographic differences are at play, but those two "basic distinctive features" are not, as best I can tell, what distininguish Evangelicalism, as that term is typically used in the US, from Lutheranism, the Reformed tradition, Wesleyanism or other historic forms of Protestantism. As I hear the term used here, at least, what distinguishes Evangelicalism from other forms of Protestantism are things like a particular emphasis on the cross and the atonement viz a viz the individual; an emphasis on evangelizing others and on conversion and a personal, individual relationship with Christ, perhaps with a corresponding de-emphasis on sacraments; and an inerrantist or literalist approach to Scripture, or at least an approach to Scripture that leans in those directions.
quote:
There are therefore good grounds for evangelicals to regard Lutherans as fellow evangelicals, and the Lutherans I know self-identify as evangelicals, though of course other Lutherans would not.
That may be true, but are you sure that those Lutherans who self-identify as evangelicals (as I recall the one Lutheran I can think of who posted in this thread specifically said she does not) are not using "evangelical" in the traditional Lutheran sense (a la the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or Evangelical Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic) rather than in the more contemporary sense?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
I would say that in blunt, or basic terms, it refers to an emphasis on the centrality of the Gospel and on spreading the Gospel. But the reality is that over the centuries it has acquired a variety of meanings.
ETA: This tangent really does need a separate thread.
[ 07. July 2017, 03:39: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
No. That's "evangelistic."
"Evangelical" has historical meaning, and was coined (or adopted) by a specific group of people for a specific reason.
Words bluntly mean what they are used to mean by the people who use them (as a whole, not individuals).
[ 07. July 2017, 05:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
In case anyone missed the hostly direction on the last page, this is a further request to drop the tangent about evangelicalism or take it up on another thread.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I will start a separate thread as promised. I haven't done so far as I have to think of a way of framing it that doesn't lay me open to the broad-brush charge of side-swiping at evangelicalism.
My 'pomposity' is meant to amuse not piss off, but if I am being pompous then Kaplan's being hypocritical by taking a gratuitous side-swipe at RCs and Orthodox by because some among them mightn't regard him as a Christian, particularly when he knows darn well that there are plenty of people within his own evangelical tradition who wouldn't regard RCs and Orthodox as Christians.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As for regarding all Lutherans as being Evangelicals, that would be akin to regarding all Anglicans as evangelical or all Presbyterians, or all Methodists as evangelical purely because they aren't Catholics.
Some Lutherans are evangelical. Others aren't.
As Nick says, it depends on how we define the term.
Meanwhile, I'll stop sitting as judge and jury on Kaplan's posting style when he takes the plank out of his own eye and stops making gratuitous side-swipes at other traditions in the way he accused others of doing vis a vis evangelicalism and when he sharpens his pencil instead of using a whopping big Magic Marker pen.
It would also help if he reads what people say rather than what he thinks they are saying.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Gamaliel, take your grievances to Hell.
mr cheesy, stop junior hosting.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In blunt terms, is 'evangelical' not a term that simply implies you are a Christian who wants to convert others to the truth?
No. That's "evangelistic."
"Evangelical" has historical meaning, and was coined (or adopted) by a specific group of people for a specific reason.
Words bluntly mean what they are used to mean by the people who use them (as a whole, not individuals).
Oh, OK, fair enough.
One can be evangelical or evangelistic. Is one necessarily the latter if one is the former?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Jamat, take the discussion on evangelicalism and matters arising elsewhere, as already instructed by the Hosts. Now.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan's being hypocritical by taking a gratuitous side-swipe at RCs and Orthodox because some among them mightn't regard him as a Christian, particularly when he knows darn well that there are plenty of people within his own evangelical tradition who wouldn't regard RCs and Orthodox as Christians.
Which was precisely my point - that evangelicals are notorious for doing it, but that in fact both sides do it.
"Sideswipes" don't come into it.
quote:
Some Lutherans are evangelical. Others aren't.
Which is what I said.
quote:
As Nick says, it depends on how we define the term.
The Lutherans I know are evangelical in the sense in which we generally use it.
Others are evangelical in the continental sense.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
