Goey

What? No Mowtown ?

Or how about James Brown's "I feel good".

Yaaaaoooooowh !

-----------------------

"Margaritaville" - Jimmy Buffet

(I can't help but sing a long)

------

"Money" - Pink Floyd (Very distintctive opening)

or

"Sweet Judy Blue Eyes" - Crosby Stills Nash

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on February 20, 2003 at 14:49.]

Rottie,

You Posted:

quote:

---

The one thing that bothers me when people call TWI a cult, is when they bring their doctrine into it. And I mean the Trinity (yes, there's the unmentionable T word I swore I'd stay away from) and the "divinity, or pre-existance of Jesus."

---

It bothers me too, but not too much anymore. But it is not the secular "cult experts" that normally bring the Trinity into the mix. It is mainstream Christians and some of their so-called "cult experts."

I wrote to Matt Slick at www.carm.org about this a long time ago, and he believes that a group is a cult if it does not espouse and teach the doctrine of the Deity of Christ. It seems to be one of the primary criteria for determining a cult among many Protestant and Catholic organizations.

The Trinity is considered by many to be an "essential doctrine" of Christianity - necessary in order to be Christian. So to these folks, if a group claims to be Christian or to follow Christ or the Bible, it must teach the Trinity or else it is not truly Christian and it's adherents are not saved. It is therefore considered a cult and a false religion.

These "essential doctrines" according to Matt Slick are.

1. The Deity of Christ (Trinity)

2. The Resurrection

3. Salvation by Grace

Here is what Matt Slick says on the CARM Web Site:

quote:

---

The definition I use for "non-Christian cult" or "non-Christian religion" is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible, it distorts the true biblical doctrines that effect salvation sufficiently so as to void salvation. If it doesn't use the Bible, it is a non-Christian religion and does not participate in the benefit of divine revelation.

---

So this is a lot of the "why" that the Trinity comes up in regards to cults. Not that I agree with it - I don't.

But it is not a whole lot different than a non-Trinitarian referring to a Trinitarian an idoloter.

Goey

Thomas Crown,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. Very enlighteing.

Let me address one minor thing.

quote:

---

Note: Recently our area was informed that we can no longer take collections of various types of $ (i.e. fellowship fund for cards, flowers, etc.) as a result of TWI being non-profit. Evidently, things like this could be looked at as paying "Dues" to the ministry which is of course not allowed for a no-profit organization. Also there were grumblings from within the ministry that many times people felt they had to contribute to these "funds" or be looked down upon.

---

This is really very stupid. If the fellowship takes place at someone's private home, and TWI is not footing the bills there, then technically, TWI has no official corporate presence there. (Also they have no authority to tell folks what to do - it is not their property.) For example, if someone got hurt at TWI fellowship in a private home, TWI would most likely have no liability in the matter but the the homeowner might.

Only if a corporate representative of TWI oficially collects the money in the form of ABS or the money goes through TWI's corporate accounts would this be an issue at all.

A fellowship meeting taking place in a private home where TWI does not pay rent or own the property is not an extension of the corporation.

It could not possibly be considered paying dues unless it was required in order to receive a certain tangible benefit and if the money went to the corporation prior to being distributed.

Non-profit corporations are indeed allowed to collect dues. But they have to record these dues collections in the books. By collecting dues, it would then have members. Dues paying members must be allowed to review the corporate books. - Which TWI would not allow. TWI is simply afraid that they may have to open their books.

However, after a home fellowship there is nothing to prevent folks from taking up a voluntary collection for flowers or cards as long as it is not sponsored or required by the corporation. The TWI coporation has no authority in a private home to tell folks what they can or cannot do.

Goey

I left in 82.

Probaly the main reason for me was the lack of humility, arrogance and haughtiness, of many of the Way Corps and leadership.

Also, the legalism was setting in about that time and Way Corps began meddling more and more in folks personal affairs.

Add to that, the screaming and yelling and foul language comming out of leaders mouths.

Then there was this kinky headed pompous a$$ dressed in leotards trapsing around on a stage like a super athlete...

I had enough.

Oh, I forgot to mention, a leader(Reverend) tried to screw my fiance/girlfriend. That kinda ticked me off.

Goey

Rafael,

The word Larry used, "niggardly" is not a racist term. It has no racial implications. It just happens to sound like another "n" word.

niggardly

1. Grudging and petty in giving or spending.

2. Meanly small; scanty or meager: left the waiter a niggardly tip.

Goey

Erick,

For the record, I do not think that you worship VPW.

From what I have gathered from your posts, you seem to have bit of knowledge of scripture, but not too much understanding of how to truly be helpful here at GS.

First. you really need to understand this. This place is not an exclusively Christian commuinity. Many folks here no longer believe that the Bible has the answers to everything. Some do not beleive it at all and and are not interested in help in the form of scripture quoting. "The Word says" means little to these folks.

Others like myself still believe in the Bible, but no longer hold to all of the tennants of PFAL or other TWI literature. Others believe and follow PFAL pretty closely. One or two think PFAL was God- breathed. And some folks are on the fence and working things through. There is no concensus of belief here, although at times some seem to think there is. We are all free to think as we wish.

You say you want to help. OK then consider what it is you can do to really be helpful here. Do you want to be helpful to as many as possible, or just to those who want to "hear the Word" or your version of it ?

Comming to Greasespot and criticizing and reproving folks and making assumptions about how they spend their time is not likely to help too many people here. I doubt that few will be too receptive to that ( as you can see). It is like going into a Pentescostal Church and telling the folks to stop all that babbling because tongues ended with the apostles. You will probably get jumped on.

Are there some bitter folks here? - You bet there are. Is it good to be bitter? - Not at all. But pointing out the bitterness in folks and throwing scripture at it is rubbing salt into wounds of many. It does not help very much. (Neither does answering tit for a tat in regards to the worship stuff.)

Also consider that speaking out againt the abuse and betrayal perpetrated upon people by those entrusted to serve, or against perceived errors in TWI teachings and practices does not necessarily mean that someone is bitter or living in the past. If you go to the main web site you will see that GS's mission is to tell the other side of the story, and this what many of us are doing here. Others have other reasons - fellowship, information, doctrinal discussion, politics, etc.

Why are you here? Seriously. If you really want to be helpful, I would suggest a bit of a different approach.

Goey

Steve,

This is a very interesting topic.

As I understand VPW's explanation in section you quoted in RTHST, it has to do with different usages of the term "spirit". As I am sure you know spirit - is 'pneuma' in Greek and 'ruwach' in Hebrew. Both of these words are used figuratively quite often - the literal meaning beiing 'wind'.

When VPW said that the "spirit of man" is his soul, he used "spirit" figuratively. If we replace 'spirit' with 'wind', it would say "the wind of man" is the soul". VPW is not using spirit and soul as synonyms here. He is actually attempting to use one term - "spirit", to explain the other - "soul", by employing a figure and to show a difference between the soul and the holy spirit - (little "h" little "s").

For example, I could say the spirit of a tree is it's sap. I am not using sap and spirit synonymously.

Anyway, that is how I understand what VPW was doing in RTHST - not that I agree with it.

Goey

Rafael,

The angels singing stuff is interesting, but trivial. I agree that is is not an actual error. But Wierwille does in fact use an argument from silence when he says that "no scripture says that angels sing". VPW used arguments from silence all the time to bloster his points.

You posted:

quote:

---

Further, there IS a scripture that says angels sing. There's no scripture that says, specifically, that angels sing melodiously. But there is a scripture that says angels sing.

---

I hate to disagree, but No, there IS NOT - at least not in any major Bible version. There is no scripture that specifically says that angels sing. There is a scripture that says "morning stars" sing. Translating 'morning stars' to 'angels' is interpretational on your part. While it may be the case ( arguable), VPW was technically correct in his statement.

I agree that it would be stupid to surmise that angels can't sing. But actually, I think that this is exactly what VPW did. Why else would he even mention it and attempt to point out the "error" in a Christmas Hymn?

Goey

Rottie,

Job 38:7

quote:

---

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

---

Yes, morning stars could be very well be refering to angels. I did not consider this verse as specifically saying or recording that angels sing because some believe that "morning stars" in this verse is literal, refering to the stars at creation and the singing is figurative.

The word for sing in this verse is the Hebrew 'ranan', which is also translated 'rejoice' and 'shout out'. It does not necesarily connote melodious singing.

Melodious singing is usually represented by the Hebrew words shiyr or zamar.

Goey

Rottie,

quote:

---

"Angels can't sing. (I'm moving this from the other thread) The Way taught that angels can't sing. They said that song "hark the herald angels sing" was wrong cause of that..."

---

What I recall is the teaching that there is no record in the Bible of angels ever singing. VPW used this to conculde that angels don't sing.

What VPW did here is called an argument from silence. He reasons that because the Bible does not record an angel ever singing(true), that angles do not sing.

An argument from silence can, at best, add strength or evidence to an argument, but by itself proves nothing at all. It is an extremely weak argument.

For example, I could say that there is no record in the Bible of Jesus playing a musical instrument. But if I conclude that he did not or could not, based on silence alone, I could very likely be wrong. We need more evidence to conclude one way or another.

The fact is, without more than the scripture's silence, it is erroneous to conclude that angels can't or don't sing. They may or may not.

I no longer own a PFAL book, so I don't if this was in PFAL or not.

What say ye Rafael, error or not ?

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on January 28, 2003 at 19:35.]

Concerning VPW's take on Nathan Plots posted:

Hey! give a preacher a break. VP is making a legitimate surmise here. One can't really preach/teach the Bible dynamically unless one makes such educated guesses regarding the emotionally fall-out of situations.

I agree agree that is is a surmise, and also that preachers shoul be allowed that, but the legitimacy of VPW's surmise here is suspect.

In all of the accounts of Nathan there is not one shread of evidence that Nathan was afraid of David, or that David was inclined to chop off Nathan's head if he had come with a different story. VPW's surmise here is pure fiction and misses the point.

The problem is agrevated folks like Mike and a few others take a "surmise" like this which has no Biblical foundation and exalt it above what the scpriptures actually do say. Since the scriptures do not support VPW's wild specualtion, the speculation is declared to be "revelation" and therefore the "Word of God" - Pretty typical of glassy-eyed followers of cultic leaders who have rejected Bible in favor of the words and commandments of men.

Plots, I doubt that you have that problem in you church when you "surmise" something.

Goey

quote:

---

By Goey ( Paraphrasing Wiewille)

1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.

2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and

3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect."

What kind of logic is this?

---

quote:

---

By Zixar

There's nothing illogical about this, Goey. If God is perfect, it makes complete sense that His word is perfect. Not that we actually have the original word anymore, but that's another food fight.

---

Zix, you did not address the point. I have no problem with # 1. Actually it is a given that the Word is perfect, the first part was unnecessary. The problem begins with # 2 and beyond. There is a leap from 1 to 2 and a giant leap from 2 to 3.

I was discussing the conclusion and how it was arrived at.

The final product, the Word, is perfect - given and agreed. But, the individual words alone need not be perfect in order to have a "Perfect Word" It is only when the words are combined to form the ideas and the concepts and the truths that God intended that we have "The Word" and perfection.

Question 1: Assuming that the words themselves are "perfect", if I take one of them out of the Word, is that word still perfect?

Question 2: Assuming the same, If I look at a individual word within the Word of God without looking at the words around it, ist that word still perfect ?

Question 3: If I rearrange the order of the words that make up a precept in the Word of God and the precept is still conveyed as before, have I made the Word of God imperfect ?

Human language is imperfect and the words that make up language are imperfect, yet in the case of the "Word", God used these imperfect words in an imperfect human language to convey his truths and precepts which are the Word. It is these truths and precept that are perfect.

Zix, Look at VPW's 1-2-3 logic construct above one more time. Seriously - put down that hot dog and try to be objective and apply your normal standards. Do you really see no problem in the logic there? Do you see a valid argument there?

I see no valid argument at all past the first given, which is rather typical of VPW. Where is the valid argument? ( I understand that conclusion based on an invalid argument *can* be true, as well as one with a false premise or even leaps).

Now let me get this musterd out of my eye.

Rafael, my mama ? Why them's fighting words!

(Goey heaves a big hunk of greasy pot roast at Rafael and runs out the door)

Goey

Zix,

I mean you are really stretching here. Let me see.

1. "God is perfect; therefore, His Word is perfect.

2. Therefore the words in the Word are perfect, and

3. [therefore] the order of the words in the Word are perfect."

What kind of logic is this? #3 looks like a leap to me. Order is not that significant in Greek many times. The Greek language was developed by humans. How can God take a human invention and make it perfect? Maybe God invented Greek, huh ? ... Yea, like Gore invented the Internet.

Are you now saying that since VPW taught the logically flawed argument above that, he therefore did not imply that God *only* used figures for emphasis?

And this somehow proves that VPW was not in error about emphasis, I mean importance. What was it the we were discussing anyway - importance or emphasis - I forgot. Oh yea, emphasis - it implies importance . And "perfect order" also implies "importance of varying degree to the verses" like figures of speech?

And this somehow proves that Wierwille did not imply "only" when he taught about God's markings the Word with figures for emphasis? Give me a break! Zix, you are slipping. What would your logic professor say?

This has digressed to silliness - not to imply that anyone is silly. ;)-->

Wierwille was wrong dangit. I declare it by fiat. :D-->

Goey

Zix,

quote:

---

Goey: The problem is that,

a)If the Bible is God's Word, then God originated whatever was written down. (theopneustos)

b) Given "a", then any figures of speech that exist in the Bible were meant to be there by the Author.

c) Since figurative language connotes emphasis by definition, any figures in the Bible give emphasis to their content as well.

d) Therefore, given "b" and "c", then God most certainly was aware that by using figures of speech, He was giving emphasis in those instances.

If there is nothing wrong with that logical process, then this whole thing boils down to a quibble on the definition of "emphasis".

---

Not really.

In my last post I was talking about VPW's take on figures, not just whether or not God himself intended/knew that figures were used. It is partly a quibble over the definition of emphasis, but more than that it is the error in VPW's logic and exposition of the subject.

BTW, © above is debatable. I have looked at definitions from some unversities and none (so far) use the term "emphasis" in regards to figures of speech. It seems that this may be a somewhat narrow definiton.

But, assuming that you logic above is not flawed and the givens are indeed true, how do you logically explain VPW's following statement?

"...can you imagine for one minute that God would allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God"

The question is rhetorical and for VPW the answer was obviously "no".

That statement in the context of figures of speech implies that *only* God decides what it to be emphasized, and VPW's lack of any other teaching about emphasis, implies that it is *only* by figures of speech that God makes emphasis in his Word. If it is *only* by figures that emphasis is made, then it follows that where there is no figure, there is no emphasis. It also follows, that if a mortal emphasizes a precept or truth that God did not give by way of a figure, he is doing something that God has forbidden.

(I know that this is repetetive, bit you seemed to gloss over this post of my previoius post.)

Do figures of speech emphasize things in the Bible - Yes

Did God choose to use figures - Yes

Did God forbid mortals "the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in the Word of God? " - No

Is it *only* by figures of speech that there is any "emphasis" in the Word? You answer.

Goey

Zix,

Rafael makes a good case.

VPW taught that figures are God's way of telling us what HE wants it to be emphasied. VPW did not teach any other way that God might emphasize something in the Bible. It is safe to assume that VPW meant that if God wants it emphasized, He (God) will use a figure, and that humans are not allowed to decide what it to be emphazized.

So then according to Wierwille, If God did not use a figure there is to be no added emphasis. To do so would be human interference in deciding what is to be emphasized, which according to Wierwille , God does not allow.

So according to Wierwille, if I were to take a verse of scripture which has no figure employed and emphasize it in some way, then I would be outside of God's will and what He allows. - That is rediculously absurd.

To me this clearly makes VPW's take on figures an actual error.

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on January 23, 2003 at 10:11.]

Larry,

quote:

---

"I literally put my shoulder to the oar and my nose to the grindstone..."

---

Ouch !

Larry, I'll work the figures in your post to see what is really important.

Goey

Statement: The Holy Spirit marked the important things by figures of speech.

To rephrase this into a simple A-B connective it would read:

1. If it is a figure of speech(A) then it is important (B).

The contrapositive is: If not B then not A, and would read:

2. If it is not important (B) then it is not a figure of speech (A).

Using this logic, I would say that this is unprovable. For one, importance is too subjective. Important for what and to whom?

I could easily easily find a verse which includes a figure of speech that seems trivial to me and of no real importance, that would seem to make the contrapositive false and thereby invalidate the first connective statement.

In defense, one could argue that all scripture is important. But arguing that would contradict the first A-B connective.

quote:

---

A "Figure of speech" relates to the form in which the words are used. It consists in the fact that a word or words are used out of their ordinary sense, or place, or manner, for the purpose of attracting our attention to what is thus said. A Figure of speech is a designed and legitimate departure from the laws of language, in order to emphasise what is said. Hence in such Figures we have the Holy Spirit's own marking, so to speak, of His own words. ...Figures are never used but for the sake of emphasis.( E.W. Bullinger - The Companion Bible - Appendix 6)

---

Wierwille, of course, got his ideas on figures from none other than E.W Bullinger. Bullinger's opinion is that the Holy Spirit uses figures for:

1. For the purpose of attracting our attention to what is said.

2. To emphasize what is said.

Note that this is only Bullinger's opinion. While it may be true, it is not objectively provable. How do we know that God used figures for emphasis? Figures are also part of common everyday language, many are simply built in. I use them quite often - sometimes with no forethought. I do not "always" use them for emphasis or to mark what is important.

Wierwiille possibly took "emphasis" to mean "importance". Regardless of the pure logic involved, VPW saying that figures mark what is important, implies in the mind of the average Joe, that scriptures with figures have more importance than those which do not - or that the figurative part of a verse is the important part. Important as opposed to what?

In any case we probably should be dealing with Wierwille's intended meaning of that statement, rather than from a purely logical standpoint. No one can rightly accuse VPW of using good logic. I seriously doubt that Wierwille considered the contrapositive.

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on January 22, 2003 at 16:35.]

Long Gone,

I was not offended in the least. I am just being stubborn in public.

We share a similar belief about the Bible and revelation. For me though, it mostly concerns the New Testament scriptures. I don't think that Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc knew that what they were writing would hundreds of years later become the "Word of God". But actually I have more respect for it now than I did when I considered it God-breathed.

Your thoughts are of great value, whether I happen to agree or not, and it is good having you in the discussion.

Your apology is not necessary.

Goey

Any diet that does not include some kind of vigorious exercise is domed to faliure. You may shed some pounds, but you will be losing some muscle mass as well as fat, besides, you will most likely yo-yo right back up after you come off the diet.

Some women I know have lost quite a bit of weight on diets without any exercise. They looked good in tight jeans, but without the jeans, they looked like they had been sunbathing in a hail storm.

Do consider some exercise along with that diet.

Goey

Figures...

I agree with Rafael's assessment on figures. They do not necessarily point to what is more important and relegate the literal to less important. Actually, adding a figure can sometimes cause the loss of emphasis.

Rafael said, "Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech."

Hmm? Let's add a figure and see..

"Thou shalt not quench the fountain of another mans soul." or...

"Thou shalt not cause another to fall asleep before his appointed time"

You be the judge as to which has more emphasis or more importance.

In any case, as a side note, I think TWI sometimes employed obscure figures of speech in order to torture scripture to fit into their preconceived beliefs.

Goey

LoneGone,

quote:

---

What the Bible says about Jesus’ conception and birth makes sense without any appearance of evil. Why read one into it?... I

---

Um let's see. You say that "espoused" in Luke 2:5 does not really mean "espoused". That they had a mariage ceremony according to Jewish tradidtion that the Bible does not mention, but they just did not have sex. And of course must have faked the or ommited the "tokens of virginity" part of that ceremony.

And then they masqueraded around as if they did have sex, not wanting to give the "appearance of evil" in the circumstances of Jesus' conception and birth. ???

Ok now, let me see now, who was it that is reading things into the bible. ????? :)-->

Goey

[This message was edited by Goey on January 20, 2003 at 23:42.]

Rafael,

Sorry, I took your statement as being decisive. "Cocked-sure" was a poor choice of words.

All I am really arguing is the possibility of some folks back then believing that Jesus was conceived in sin.

Like you, I am not convinced one way or another on what the Pharisees meant.

Goey

IN the NIV, John 8:41 reads:

"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

While this may be easier to understand from a language point of view, the translators took great liberty in interpreting the phrase "born of fornication" to mean "illegitimate children". - It assumes way too much. "Born of fornication" (gk. ek porneias ouk egenn??n) does not directy correlate to "illegitimate children". The words used in the text do however directly correlate to "born of fornication. The NIV can bite you if you are not careful.

It is clear that VPW was in error concerning the Bar Mitzvah. I am not contesting that at all.

But it is also clear from Luke that, (1.) That Mary was pregnant when she left to stay with Elizabeth for three months and that Elisabeth knew about it. (2. ) That Joseph and Mary had not come together and were still but espoused when Mary was "great with" child.

It is also clear that betrothed/espoused couples were forbidden to have sex. It was considered a sin. Anyone who saw Mary's pregnancy and did not know of the divine conception would have assumed that Joseph and Mary had jumped the gun, or that Mary had commited adultery with another while betrothed to Joseph. In either case it would have been fornication.

Mary spent most of her pregnancy in Nazareth after returning from Elisabeth's house in Juda. In the time of Jesus, Nazareth was a small agricuktural town of only a few dozen families, and it it not likely that Mary could have hidden her pregnancy from "the neighbors". They would most likely have known about it.

It is not unreasonable at all to speculate that Jesus may have been considered to have been "born of fornication" by some folks and that there *may* have been some stigma related to that.

Rafael posted:

quote:

---

The "we be not born of fornication" was a self-defense comment from the Pharisees, not an accusatory one.

If I were to say, "Wait just a second there, I'm no illegal alien." That doesn't mean I'm accusing you of being one.

---

Yea, but what if I tell you, "Look, I know you are the blood decendent of Louis Olmeda, a good man, but your real father is Satan", and you then looked at me, presuming me to have been born a bastard, and said, "I was not born as a result of illicit sex". ???

With all due respect, I just don't see how you are so cocked-sure that this was a self-defense statement by the Pharisees.

Goey

Rafael,

quote:

---

So even assuming the verse in John 8 is a reference to the conception of Christ (a point I am finding more and more difficult to concede as I consider these records), it still does nothing to substantiate the claim that there was a stigma attached to Jesus because of it. "Your parents sinned and corrected themselves" is hardly an insult.

---

Question: If the fornication comment in John 8 was not directed at Jesus in some way, then where did it come from? Why did they even bring up fornication? The context in John 8:42 is clearly parentage or "Who's your daddy!"

I do agree thgough that there is no evidence of any stigma associated with the presumed sin of Joseph and Mary. But it seems to me that these Pharisees may have been grasping at straws to discredit Jesus, and that this fornication comment was probably the best they could come up with. - to bring up his parents presumed past indescretion.

BTW, the Pharisees did not add or imply the "corrected themselves" part - you did. It would be like someone bringing up the past sin of another, even though the person had apologized and repented of it and changed his ways. The one bringing it up is not concerned with whether or not the person has changed or repented - they just use the past as a weapon to discredit whenever convenient. Happens all the time. You should meet my ex-wife.

Goey

Ex10,

Did you read my post thoroughly (or is that throughy?) ;)-->

quote:

---

One thing that I've thought about is that no one neccessarily had to know about Mary's pregnancy, other than Joseph. And I'm pretty certain it's not something that would be announced to the neighbors or whoever. Suppose Joseph just kept it to himself, and they went through the marriage (coming together) ceremony as planned. I'm thinking Joseph might've even found out on their honeymoon night. In those days, long, loose flowing clothing was the norm. Even today, it's not that hard to hide a pregnancy if you really want to, especially with a first baby.

---

How then do you handle Luke 2:4-5 where Mary is great with child, yet it says clearly says that Mary is still Joseph's "espoused wife". There is no record of a comming together ceremony or a honeymoon night. Also, it pretty clear from Luke 1:42 - ? that Elisabeth also knew of Mary's conception. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph lied or were intentionally deceptive to family and friends about this devine conception? After both had been visited by an angel of God? Why would they do that ?

quote:

---

Could it be that Joseph and Mary purposely planned their obliged trip to Bethlehem when they did so Mary wouldn't be home when the baby was born? Even nowadays, people hide pregnancies and then leave town to give birth so the neighbors won't know.

---

Try a few commentaries. Of those I have read, none have made this kind of specuation. What folks believe and practice today in the US bears little on what folk did in Jewish culture in those days. As for me, I kind of doubt that Joseph and Mary were too concerned about the neighbors at this point.

quote:

---

Another intriguing thing to me is the fact that the couple stayed in Bethlehem and didn't return immediately to Nazareth. I think that's pretty clear from the record. (The Magi finding a young child in a house.)

---

It seems they may have stayed for the "days of purification which" according to Leviticus 12 would have been 40 days after the birth of the child. Everything was done strircly according to the Law.

The Magi finding them in a house indicates that they moved out of the stable which was only temporary. They would have been in a "house" (okia) already if there had been room elsewhere. The arriving of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem coincides with the Feast of Tabernacles( according to many), which all the men of Israel were required attend. Bethlehem is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem so every room for miles around Jerusalem would have been already taken up. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts 8 days, so after this there would be have been room available elsewhere.

Ex10, what you are saying here is all based on the presumption that Mary and Joseph were somehow inclined to conceal Mary's pregnancy - That they were ashamed or so concerned about about what the neighbors thought, that they would leave town and be deceptive to friend and family to hide Mary's conception and pregnancy. I see no real evidence to suggest that at all. What you think you may have felt or done in Mary's situation bears little on what Mary & Joseph may have felt or done. Mary was a Jewess who had been chosen by God to give birth to His Messiah. These folks lived in another time and in a completely different culture and very likely did not think like us Texans. :)-->

Goey