steve wrote:he meant to say, "I know you are not my biggest fan."
Thanks for revealing a part of your character.
I took this to mean that she previously had 5 men, possibly living with each for some period of time, or maybe just had a casual relationship. But the man with whom she was now copulating was not hers, in the sense that the others were, for he "belonged" to a different woman. However, perhaps it is correct to call her previous alliances "marriage." My understanding is that that to marry (γαμεω gameō) in those times was not to enter into a legal contract, but to come to an understanding of permanency between a couple who were about to, or had already experienced, sexual love. The (γαμος gamos) or wedding celebration was the celebration of a marriage that had already taken place, such as the wedding celebration at Cana that our Lord attended.Hi Steve, you wrote:Paidion, this is true, but it is clear, in John 4, that Jesus is using the word to mean husband, since He contrasts the first five with her present "man."
I think you are getting hung up on some points of language from a relatively moral culture which assumed the act of sex accompanied the covenant of marriage. One could be spoken of with the understanding that the other was included. Much like I just said, where speaking of putting on the uniform is understood to be accompanied with the oath of service - without having to mention the oath....from what I read in the law, upon taking someone's virginity who was not otherwise engaged, the virginity taker THEN paid the father and was to marry the woman.
The verb tense does not say, because he married her (past tense) when he took her virginity, he is then to pay her father because he became man and wife with the daughter. Rather, subsequent to taking her virginity he is to pay her father and marry her. The marrying and taking of virginity are seen as two separate acts.
In an agrarian society, the woman's worth came from her purity. The marriage follows the virginity takers devaluation of the woman by taking her virginity, and does not occur because he married her through the act of intercourse.
Cute.jaydam wrote:simply espouse your belief on your pet issue
I don't know what this is in refence to. It sounds as if you mean it in some sense negatively. The only line you cited from me was my statement to Michelle clarifying what I thought you were saying. This was not intended as a value statement about you.Thanks for revealing a part of your character.
There are even some in Israel Identity today who claim that race doesn’t really matter, while the truth is, race is everything, and only White Israelites can be Christians!
Seeing that the Scriptures speak plainly to the topic at hand in both identifying Rahab as a harlot, yet dignifying her with honorable mention in the genealogy of Christ, perhaps we should both humbly admit that fact and allow the striving to cease.Who is the one "striving against evidence"?
Try this one: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/RahabtheHarlot.htmlStevenD wrote:I remain unpersuaded
Steve.....I did not say this.steve wrote:You had said that you were not her greatest fan.
Not to belabor this, but I still have the impression you mean it the other way round. Are you really meaning to say, "I know that I don't like you that much"? That is what your statement means.I said -- I know I'm not your biggest fan.