I do not see anywhere where it says Joseph had other wives. Technically Joseph was not his biological father, so any offspring of Joseph and Mary would be half brothers and sisters.
-
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.
It is shameful for a woman to be uncovered
- Thread starter PeteR
- Start date
I do not see anywhere where it says Joseph had other wives. Technically Joseph was not his biological father, so any offspring of Joseph and Mary would be half brothers and sisters.
Yes, and technically any sons of Joseph’s other wives would not be biologically related to Yeshua, but they were still family and would be called brothers.
And nothing can be proven either way, but some puzzle pieces do fit better in one scenario than the other.
As long as a woman is under male headship, why would it matter? It’s not like there would be intimacy. As long as the elders would be in agreement with each other.
What pledge are you referring to?
James was slated for martyrdom. John ended up living in relative peace in Ephesus where it is believed Mary lived out her days with him somewhat insulated from the shit storm her son unleashed on the Jewish world. Jesus gave Mary and John to each other out of concern for His mother who would have otherwise been in the thick of it without any sons to care for her.Bear with me @steve , because I have a very western mind
I really don't know why Jesus had John do that. I know Mary had other male children that could have taken care of her. Unless they were all very young and moved in with John as well?
I really do see headship as 'power over'. I have a very responsibility oriented philosophy (I prefer inalienable responsibilities to inalienable rights after all) but how can I be responsible for something I have no power over? Doesn't the head, by definition have authority over the body?
So I guess when you say "In reality it's about responsibility": Do you mean Headship is about responsibility and not power (authority) at all? If so I have no idea what I can do with that. It's like headship without headship. Or do you mean Headship is primarily about responsibility and to a lesser degree than usually advertised, power? If so then I'm right there with you. All of my authority I naturally derive from my responsibilities anyways.
(Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21)
31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
It would seem that if these brethren were of a different mother they would have been with their own mother rather than with Mary. James not yet a 'believer' Jesus' choice was a rather for a believer to care for His mother.
31There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
It would seem that if these brethren were of a different mother they would have been with their own mother rather than with Mary. James not yet a 'believer' Jesus' choice was a rather for a believer to care for His mother.
She still has her father for headship.
Unlikely before menopause. Which aligns well with Paul's commands.
My thoughts exactly. A son having headship over his mother would not be odd in the ancient world.
Only in our society.
In our society we like to focus on the responsibility and ignore or deny the authority. Do that with an animal and you're as likely as not to end up hurt or dead. If someone [though apparently not you] says its about responsibility not power, its usually true they don't think you're to have any power.
https://newrepublic.com/article/129483/millennial-women-gravitating-bernie-sanders
This is an old link. Will work on another.
You always enlighten me, Slumberfreeze, but I do have a bone to pick (no pun intended): in the context of Women of Scripture, 'younger widows' might refer to anyone under 115 years of age.
Just sayin'.
And not just your belief -- but actual Scripture. The literal translation of the Hebrew (Concordant Version of the Old Testament) states that God put Adam (the Human Being) to sleep and removed the female 'angular organs' from him and used the dust of the earth with those parts to form a whole female human being, leaving Adam with just being male. 'Angular organs' was an idiomatic expression of the time that referred to not only genitalia but all the working parts associated with one gender or the other. The Human Being (Adam) was an hermaphrodite until Yahweh saw fit to split him up to create human companionship.
We resist that at our peril.
Amen, and it doesn't stop with I Cor. 7:36.
How would one tell if someone else is trolling? As I mentioned in the private conversation I just began with you, I've never really known what people mean by trolling, so after sending my message to you I looked it up -- and discovered that internet trolling refers to people who are basically bomb throwers. I assure you I am not that. On occasion I may purposefully stir the pot, but only for the purpose of enlightenment, love, transcendence, growth, increased oneness with our Lord or general edification.
Feel free to seek out the Concordant Version of the Old Testament (CVOT) and look up the relevant verses about Adam's significant change of status. I assure you that the whole 'rib' thing has never been anything but serious propaganda, and I mentioned that in response to a post from @steve.
As far as the comment about younger widows including anyone under 115, that was a bit tongue in cheek a la making an abstruse reference to ladies such as Sarah who even birthed children in their sunset years, but it's also intended to make a serious point: any discussion, especially among men, of what widows are supposed to do with the rest of their lives should at the very least (a) consider the then-current cultural context/dispensation within which the Scripture being referenced is contextually placed; (b) consider the insensitivity of thinking we have any right to make proclamations about whether a woman of that age should just set aside her desire for conjugal intimacy; and (c) recognize that, as men, we really don't have a vote in the matter. Sometimes it's just time to step aside and allow God's Word to speak to women directly without thinking we have any right to interpret it for them. As men, we have way more than enough of our own eye-filling-log issues to sort out without thinking we are slated to be authorities on what women should do after their husbands die or abandon them.
So here's the pithy answer to your statement: you can't tell if I'm trolling just as you can't tell if I'm going to be on Santa's Nice List this year, because I'm not.
Paging @Pacman re conversation we had earlier today... Not sure we got this far, but discussed the removal of woman from man...
Paging @Pacman re conversation we had earlier today... Not sure we got this far, but discussed the removal of woman from man...
Yeah I’ve seen that claim before. I’m curious of documentation... I admit I’m skeptical but I’ve been wrong before... @IshChayil or @Kevin can you weigh in on this?
But yes if that’s true then it definitely undergirds what we were talking about...
mi-tzalotav litteraly one of his sides
I've heard this before, and that Eve was made from Adam's Angular Apendege bone, why men don't have bones in our penises.
Origins of the hermaphrodite Adam teachings that I found
In the Haggadah
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bereshit Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651). The difference in the interpretation is that, according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense, identical with that conception of Hermes in which he is understood to be the "logos alethinos," the son of Maya, the bisexual primeval man of the East. The Greek Hermaphroditus —represented by statues and on old gems, in which representations, however, bisexuality is scarcely indicated—has remained strange to the East and totally unknown to the Jews. In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam
The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil.
There is an opinion in the Talmud that states that God originally created Adam as a hermaphrodite and then split that one being into two separate bodies.
Male and Female he created them.
—Genesis 1:27
According to the first creation account in Genesis it is suggested that man and woman were created at the same time, contrasting with the second account in chapter two where Eve is created after Adam from his rib. To reconcile this seeming contradiction, some ancient Rabbis suggested that God originally created an androgynous or hermaphrodite being with two heads, one male and one female, attached to the back.[7] However, this made things understandably difficult and so God split them into two separate beings, which is what Eve’s splitting from Adam in Genesis 2 is actually referring to. Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah are two collections of midrash which comment on this unusual interpretation, the former using a passage from Psalms to justify it:
“’You have formed me before and behind’ (Psalms 139:5)… R. Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created it with both male and female sexual organs, as it is written, ‘Male and female He created them, and He called their name ‘adam.’ (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)
Rabbi Samuel b. Nahman said: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed Be He created Man, He created him as an Androgynos.
Resh Lakish said that at the time that [Adam] was created, he was made with two faces, and [God] sliced him and gave him two backs, a female one and a male one, as it says And He took from his sides, as it says, And to the side of the Tabernacle. (Leviticus Rabbah 12:2)
Some rabbis objected to this exegesis, noting that Genesis 2:21 tells of how God took one of the man’s ribs to create the woman. To this, the following explanation is given:
“’He took one of his ribs (mi-tzalotav)’… [‘One of his ribs’ means] one of his sides, as you read [in an analogy from the similar use of the same word elsewhere], ‘And for the other side wall (tsela`) of the Tabernacle’ (Exodus 26:20).”
The rebuttal being made here, in other words, is that the phrase used to describe woman’s creation from man’s rib – mi-tzalotav – actually means an entire side of his body because the word "tsela" in it is used in the book of Exodus to refer to one side of the holy Tabernacle.
But what was it that caused rabbis and Jewish scholars such as these to support such a seemingly heretical interpretation? Why not adopt a simpler answer to the scriptural contradiction like the one accepted by Rashi which continues to be the leading explanation today – that the first chapter of Genesis was an overview of creation while the second chapter went into the details – ? It’s possible that their exegesis was influenced by Greek sources, namely Plato’s Symposium and the Speech of Aristophanes, which use the Greek word androgynos employed in Nahman’s Midrash.
Before you go saying this is the answer look at what else
In the image of God he created him; The Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth
—Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7
Some midrash report that God created two Adams: one who was not made from dust but stamped in the image of God, and the other made from the dust of the earth.[1] The former was placed in the garden of Paradise in heaven while the former, our Adam, was placed in the garden of Paradise on earth. The notion of two Adams derived from a seeming contradiction between the two creation accounts in Genesis where different things are said about man’s creation – an explanation reflected in the works of the first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. It was Philo’s belief that something made in God’s image must be very much like its Creator, far transcendent to human beings. He concluded therefore that the figure created in Genesis 1:27 was not the same as the man created in Genesis 2:7. Philo identifies the transcendent figure as the Heavenly Man, as God’s invisible image, and as God’s Logos, identifying the Logos as the “eldest-born Image of God” (De Confusione Linguarum 62-63). Thus, for Philo, the earthly man was made after the image of the Heavenly Man.
But why two gardens? In rabbinic literature, the term Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden) came to be equated with heavenly Paradise not necessarily on earth. By believing that God had created two Adams, one above and one below, it solved the debate for some rabbis as to whether Paradise was on earth or in heaven.
Other versions of the two Adam myth exist, such as the idea that the first Adam was created for this world while the second Adam was created for the world to come (Midrash Tanhuma). In other words, the second Adam is the Messiah whose arrival will spark the End of Days. This belief is reflected in the writings of the Apostle Paul who identified Jesus as the second Adam, the one who was sent to give us the eternal life that the first Adam took away (1 Corinthians 15:45).
The tradition of Adam and Eve’s androgynous nature appears to date all the way back to the first centuries CE, as it is also found in ancient pseudepigrapha such as The Apocalypse of Adam (1st-4th century CE) of the Nag Hammadi library. In the story, Adam tells Seth of how they came into existence:
When God had created me out of the earth, along with Eve, your mother, I went about with her in a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which we had come forth. She taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal God. And we resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the god who had created us and the powers with him, whom we did not know. Then God, the ruler of the aeons and the powers, divided us in wrath. Then we became two aeons. And the glory in our heart(s) left us, me and your mother Eve, along with the first knowledge that breathed within us.
Aside from Adam and Eve originating together as an androgynous being, it’s also interesting to note the clear Gnostic teaching in this text, namely that they were created not from the biblical God of the Bible but rather the higher eternal God – making them more powerful than the evil, subcreator god who is ignorant of the deities that preceded him. In anger, the inferior god of the Bible divides Adam and Eve to make them two beings, thus removing the divine knowledge that had been breathed into them by the eternal God. The theme of God having to diminish Adam’s power shortly after creating him is also found in midrashic literature
There's more but this is basis for some of the early church fathers to espouse the belief since Yeshua was the second Adam he was also an Hermaphrodite.
Last edited:
Phew. None of that for me. I'm out.
Well... there's the real problem with that thought....
Just for the record I was posting info on the hermaphrodite Adam theory, not endorsing it. I do believe that Eve was taken from Adam's Side and created. After that everyone can ponder away. I'll just ask God if that was true if it seems that important to stop praising and worshipping Him in the Kingdom to get that answer.
A very creative translation, albeit, it seems more like the Greek legends than the biblical account.
So here's the original, I'll follow it with how I translate it Genesis 2:22-23:
כא וַיַּפֵּל֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ תַּרְדֵּמָ֛ה עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם וַיִּישָׁ֑ן וַיִּקַּ֗ח אַחַת֙ מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו וַיִּסְגֹּ֥ר בָּשָׂ֖ר תַּחְתֶּֽנָּה׃ כב וַיִּבֶן֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ אֶֽת־הַצֵּלָ֛ע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֥ח מִן־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיְבִאֶ֖הָ אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם׃
כג וַיֹּאמֶר֮ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י וּבָשָׂ֖ר מִבְּשָׂרִ֑י לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֥י מֵאִ֖ישׁ לֻֽקְחָה־זֹּֽאת׃
21 So Adonai ʾElohiym cast a deep sleep on Adam and while he slept Adonai took one of his ribs. He then closed the flesh under it. 22 Then Adonai ʾElohiym built the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, “this time it is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh; this one will be called ʾišāh (woman) because she was taken fromʾīš (man).”
So, the whole "angular organs" is quite suspect in the translation you are using. According to HALOT, צֵלָע means: 1. rib (they even reference this verse), 2. side (they give contextual examples like the "side of the mountain, ark, etc.")
In architectural terms we sometimes render this word as "plank" like a board but many Hebrew words for body parts and botanical terms do double-duty in architectural language.
Building's have "shoulders", the Menorah (lampstand) in the temple has "reeds", the altars of G-d have "thighs", etc. the word in question here can someetimes mean "chamber" in architectural language, so you may have something there to bolster
your translations idea (not angular organs though; that's just odd).
Now the etymology of this word "side,rib" is disputed.
LXX translates the word as πλευρά "side". Semantically, for me rib (or some other bone) makes sense b/c Adam later refers to her as "bone of my bones".
I've never, however, come across the translation "angular organs".
Also I have a personal request, if you don't mind not spelling out G-d's name here I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks brother!