Show of HandsShow of Hands

johonmilla November 9th, 2017 9:59pm

Alabama state auditor Jim Ziegler has stated in defense of Roy Moore:“Take Mary and Joseph. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became the parents of Jesus”. Is this a good justification for pedophilia and/or child marriages?

2 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/09/17 11:14 pm

And these same people say Muslims are the problem 😂

Reply
historylover
11/09/17 6:07 pm

Jim Ziegler sounds like an idiot. I am extremely disgusted that allegations appear to be viewed by so many Americans as facts before any investigations or proof of any kind. Lying is not a new invention, and many accusers are liars motivated by a multitude of reasons. Whatever the truth may be, Jim Ziegler needs to shut up.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/09/17 4:59 pm

It's not pedophilia (Mary was about 15 or so) but cannot justify anything since way in biblical times, a man had to have establish an existence to care for a wife which needed a good provider and was given to marriage young. Not applicable 4 today.

Reply
johonmilla Monroe, nc
11/09/17 5:14 pm

Actually I read most bible experts say Mary was 12.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/09/17 5:33 pm

Well, 12 was the youngest age a Jewish girl *could* marry in those days, but where's the outrage over this?

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 6:22 pm

I don’t think that the Bible ever says how old Mary was. However I think that the “Gospel” According to James says that she was around 12 (I could be wrong about that). The book isn’t biblical, but it probably at least has some credible information in it, like who Mary’s parents were.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 6:51 pm

Did y’all know that in the beginning of our country, the age of consent was TEN?! I’ve copy/pasted the info from Wiki about that in Johonmilla’s other poll about Moore, if you’re interested. I don’t have time to do it here because I’m watching all three granddaughters this weekend.

....

gluxford1 Arizona
11/09/17 7:40 pm

Mohammed's wife was 6.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 7:44 pm

But GluxFord, he may have married her, but he didn’t technically have sex with her until she was 9 so it was fine. *Sarcasm of course*

gluxford1 Arizona
11/09/17 7:46 pm

😂😂😂

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/09/17 7:51 pm

There often was no aoc before Victorian times.
Now these days, I bet some people would like to raise it to 25 since that's when brain development is complete 😣

smartfart Florida
11/09/17 4:24 pm

Sounds like a justification that would be made by a member of NAMBLA!

Odysseus We All Need A Fantasy
11/09/17 4:11 pm

What is it they don’t understand about the term “virgin birth”?

Reply
johonmilla Monroe, nc
11/09/17 4:14 pm

Regardless, it’s a child marriage, considering god made them get married. And since their married, it’s safe to assume they did “it”.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 6:16 pm

No he didn’t. This has been a debate between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants for a while now. The term “brother” in the Bible is most likely talking about his cousins.

Here is an article defending the Catholic position www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a27.htm

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 6:55 pm

God didn’t make them get married, Johonmilla. They were already betrothed, which is MUCH more serious than an engagement is for us. Basically, to get unbetrothed, you had to go through a bunch of stuff like getting divorced is now.

This is why the Bible says that Joseph was thinking about putting her away quietly—there was a process to it, and he wanted to spare her the embarrassment that this would cause—as everyone would accuse her of being a harlot (prostitute) because they would believe she had sex with someone else other than Joseph (he would testify it wasn’t him and of course, in that day and age, everyone would believe the man over the woman).

God sent an angel to Joseph to tell him that Mary had NOT been unfaithful to him, which convinced Joseph to continue on with the betrothal and marry her and take care of her, as she was carrying God’s child.

...

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 6:57 pm

And they didn’t have sex until AFTER she had Jesus. The Bible clearly states this.

I disagree with MrAmerica. I believe they did have other children and would see no reason not to think they didn’t have other children after Jesus. The Bible doesn’t say she remained a virgin forever.

...

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 7:00 pm

I don’t know how you can argue with Matthew 1:25 on this one:

“But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

....

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 7:25 pm

It is very easy to misinterpret that verse to mean that they had relations after Jesus was born. IMO.

St. Jerome used these example to demonstrate how that verse in reality, doesn’t necessarily mean that they had relations after he was born:

Gen 8:7 -- the raven "did not return UNTIL the waters were dried up” Did the raven return? No.

1 Macc 5:54 -- "...not one of them was slain UNTIL they had returned in peace." Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? No.

(Obvious you don’t accept this book as biblical but you can surely still understand where he is coming from)

Here is a list of other examples www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=290081

Some translations like the NJB also say something along the lines of

“he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.” Which is different than the way your translation words it.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 8:13 pm

First of all, Gen. 8:7 doesn’t say anything about the raven returning. It says:

Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth.

I’ve always taken that to mean that the raven went back and forth from the Ark to out searching for land UNTIL he finally found land and stayed on land.

I don’t know ANYTHING about Macc and don’t even know what that is referring to.

The word for until in Matthew 1:25 is heos. I’m copying what I found on that here and asking @tlaney1 to step in and continue the convo, as he knows a lot more about Greek, and terms of language that this article has in it.

MORE

...

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 8:13 pm

2) Hubby is not available or I would ask him. But my 3 granddaughters are here for the weekend also, so I don’t have the time to dedicate to figuring this out.

All I know is that the word UNTIL has always meant up to a certain point something happens and then something else happens at that point, to me—-or “up to the time that” as the dictionary says.

Tom, can you make sense of this:

M

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 8:15 pm

with the genitive of the neuter relative pronoun οὗ or ὅτου it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when); α. ἕως οὗ (first in Herodotus 2, 143; but after that only in later authors, as Plutarch, et al. (Winers Grammar, 296 (278) note; Buttmann, 230f (199))): followed by the indicative, Mt 1:25 (WH brackets οὗ); Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21; Acts 21:26 (see Buttmann); followed by the subjunctive aorist, equivalent to Latin future perfect, Mt 14:22; Mt 26:36 (where WH brackets οὗ and Lachmann has ἕως οὗ ἄν); Lk 12:50 (Rec.; Luke 15:8 Tr WH); Lk 24:49; Acts 25:21; 2 Pet 1:19; after a negative sentence, Mt. 17:9; Lk 12:59 (R G L; Lk 22:18 Tr WH); John 13:38; Acts 23:12, 14, 21. β. ἕως ὅτου, αα. until, till (the time when): followed by the indicative, John 9:18; followed by the subjunctive (without ἄν), Luke 13:8; Luke 15:8 (R G L T); after a negation, Luke 22:16, 18 (R G L T). ββ. as long as, whilst (Song of Solomon 1:12), followed by the present indicative, Matthew 5:25.

...

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 8:39 pm

Yes it does talk about it returning “Which went forth and did not RETURN, till the waters were dried up upon the earth.” Douay-Rhiems

I’m also going to side with Jerome’s view of this verse over any modern interpretation. He had access to more information than we currently have access to, and he knew both Hebrew and Greek. He also lived WAY before any of us.

1 Maccabees is a biblical book found in all Catholic Bibles, Orthodox Bibles, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, etc.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 8:58 pm

I’m wondering if Catholics have a different version of the Bible than Protestants, MrAmerica, because I’m not seeing that in any of the versions I use. Please look at this site and see if you see it anywhere:

biblehub.com/genesis/8-7.htm

I’m also not familiar with that version that you gave letters for earlier. What does that stand for?

Oh, I knew that Maccabees was part of the Catholic Bible, etc. I just don’t know anything about what’s in it, what it’s about, etc. I’ve never read it.

..

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/09/17 9:01 pm

I searched on that page for the word return and ONLY saw it in one version of the Bible—that one that you mentioned—Douey Raimes or something like that. I’ve never heard of that. Is it a Catholic Bible? We have shelves full of versions of the Bible and like I said, I’ve never heard of it.

...

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 9:25 pm

Give me a few minutes - I’ll have a reply typed out shortly.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 9:40 pm

Catholics don’t technically have a “different Bible” than Protestants do because we don’t have an official English Bible, we have an official canon but that is it. I think that the Latin Vulgate may be considered the official Bible but that is in Latin, which I don’t speak Latin. But I am going to try to learn Latin and Greek in the future, hopefully going to start with with Greek.

I’m only 99% sure about the statement I am making below being accurate, so take it with a grain of salt.

At one point, all Catholic Bibles were translated from the Latin Vulgate, however I think that Pope Pius XII (I could be wrong) encouraged all newer Catholic Bible translations to be translated from Greek and Hebrew, not Latin.

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 9:41 pm

NJB *New Jerusalem Bible* is a Catholic Bible translation, however, when researching it, I read reviews for it online and some Protestants were buying and reading it, so it seems to be a decent Bible for all Christians. One of the The appeals of the NJB, for me at least, is that it uses “Yahweh” instead of “LORD” or “Jehovah”

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/09/17 9:46 pm

I have an app on my phone called “New Jerusalem Bible 1985 Roman Catholic” if you want to have a look at the translation, I’d recommend downloading it. Also keep in mind that some newer versions of The Jerusalem (The older brother of the NJB) and the New Jerusalem Bible don’t use the word Yahweh, I don’t know why this is.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/10/17 6:26 pm

MrAmerica, I’m not so much interested in the different versions as I am the fact that NONE of the versions of the Bible have that verse listed as you quoted it, except that Douey-Rheims or whatever it is. I’ve never heard of that version before. Can you tell me anything about it, and why it’s totally different from all other versions?

I put a link to that verse and asked you to look at the page and see that none of the versions but that one have it quoted that way, but you must have missed it.

I have all 3 granddaughters here for the weekend, so I might not answer back until after the weekend.

..

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/10/17 7:26 pm

First, the Douay-Rhiems isn’t really that different from other versions of the Bible, you are making assumptions without reading it.
2. HISTORY: The Douay-Rheims was an early English Catholic Bible translation with the New Testament being pubished in 1582, and later it was less “latinized” by a Catholic Bishop. It is translated from St. Jerome’s 4th century Vulgate translation of the Bible, which is a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims New Testament translation even had SOME influence on the KJV.
3. I am also going to make the assumption that Early Christians read Genesis 8:7 as saying RETURN, especially considering that St. Jerome used that for his defense against those that could mistakenly say that Mary wasn’t a Virgin her whole life because of Matthew 1:25.

4JC Christian Pastors Wife
11/10/17 10:04 pm

I asked hubby about this. He said about the time Jerome was writing (around 400 AD) was when it was really becoming popular that Christ was her only child. Hubby thinks the purpose of this was setting the grounds for more veneration of Mary than what was intended by Scripture.

The fact that this Douey-Rheims translation is the ONLY translation that uses the word Return in Genesis makes me question all of this reasoning. I’ll accept what has been translated in ALL the other versions before I’ll accept only one that is different.

Sorry, you’re not going to convince me, here. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

@tlaney1 I would like your input, if you have time.

...

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/10/17 11:36 pm

“I asked hubby about this. He said about the time Jerome was writing (around 400 AD) was when it was really becoming popular that Christ was her only child. Hubby thinks the purpose of this was setting the grounds for more veneration of Mary than what was intended by Scripture”

That is false. Popular Christians way before Jerome’s time believed that Mary only had one child and was worthy of veneration; St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Martr, and many more early Christians had a similar views with St. Augustine, St. Jerome, etc, and they lived between the 2-3rd century. Almost everyone believed that Jesus was her only child, even Protestant reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther believed this. What makes you think that newer Protestants are right about this when a countless number of Christians in the past 2000 years understood that she was always a virgin and that Matthew 1:25 didn’t contradict this teaching?

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/10/17 11:37 pm

“The fact that this Douey-Rheims translation is the ONLY translation that uses the word Return in Genesis makes me question all of this reasoning. I’ll accept what has been translated in ALL the other versions before I’ll accept only one that is different”

Expect it isn’t the only translation using the word “Return” it is Just the only English translation using “Return” on that website. St. Jerome, who could write, speak, and perfectly understand Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. understood the verse in Genesis as meaning RETURN. Also let’s take a look at 1 John 5:7: ( www.biblestudytools.com/1-john/5-7-compare.html ) Do you see how different each translation is interpreting this verse? Are you going to discredit the KJV, Douay Rheims, and Jubilee Bible because they do not share the majority opinion of how the verse is to be interpreted?

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/10/17 11:48 pm

“Sorry, you’re not going to convince me, here. We’ll just have to agree to disagree”

Okay, if you want we can end our discussion here. I don’t think that we’re going to convince each other, oh, and I have a feeling that we’re making the other three users in this thread mad with all of the notifications. I’d be interested in hearing Toms view, though, I have a feeling that it will be almost identically with yours because he is a Southern Baptist.

MrsCrayonWax
11/09/17 3:06 pm

What in fresh hell?

Reply
CoffeeNow Powderpuff Leftist
11/09/17 3:02 pm

No it’s a silly one. That being said, 14 does not qualify for pedophila. Pedophilia is pre-pubescent

Reply
MrsCrayonWax
11/09/17 3:18 pm

This is just old fashioned statutory rape.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/09/17 5:01 pm

It has become fashionable to wield the red flag pedophilia to cause more of an outrage in such gray are cases adolescent/adult.