The Women at The Well
- Thread starter quietthinker
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
MattMooradian
Well-Known Member
By this measure, every movie about Jesus should be shunned by Christians because every movie adds scenes that are not written about in the Bible. Jesus' walking style, His movements, His tone of voice in such movies are all created out of the imagination of the writers. Additionally, every pastor embellishes on the stories in the Bible from time to time, should we walk out of church whenever pastors do this?
Well, you are, if you intend on calling her Tamar, and purport that she wasn't, to some degree, ostracized by her community.
Yes, that is actually what we should do, dismiss it altogether. Whether you walk out, or just roll your eyes, it should be disregarded as nothing but imprudent conjecture, and not have any impact whatsoever on one's exegesis or theology, or Biblical discussion.
All the words that came out of Jesus' mouth are sufficient to impart the intended divine message. To entertain what the woman was wearing or her social status, displays nothing but misguided and incompetent eisegesis.
...movies often require embellishments in order to retain the fluidity of the scene, because the text on its own is often disjointed.
And, when they do, it should be entirely regarded as fabricated and erroneous.
Well, you interpreted 'married' or 'husband' in two different ways here? Married in the first sense, as to her 5 husbands, you claim means having fornicating. But, in the latter sense, you claim it implies that her current partner was married?
Jesus distinguished between all six men as either husband, or not. Thus, since we all conclude that she either had, or was having intimate relationships with all six of them, we don't ascertain that Jesus meant partner in all these cases. I believe that she was formally married 5 times (it happens today, why not then), but this last person that she is with, is not her legal spouse (no common-law back then).
Plus, Jesus would not refer to a one-night stand as 'being with' someone. His implication was that #6 was a permanent fixture in her life.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Very plausible, good point?
We get the impression though, that because she was currently living with someone out of wedlock, that she was a woman who lacked morals - not to mention, 5 husbands does sound like she lacked discretion (not easy to find the 'right-man' that many times).
But, like I keep saying, I won't dare assert anything either way, no matter how viable the suggestion is, and let it influence my understanding of the pericope.
Last edited:
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
I thought about that because I came across this. Not that one has anything to do with the other..
just the concept.
Mar 12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
Mar 12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mar 12:20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
Mar 12:21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
Mar 12:22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
Mar 12:23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
Hugs
and the rich man that went to hades and wanted Lazarus to dip his finger in water to cool his tongue, made me think of the well. He didn't have a bucket to draw from either... he had 5 brothers though... just saying :)
Thank You
just the concept.
Mar 12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
Mar 12:19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mar 12:20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
Mar 12:21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
Mar 12:22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
Mar 12:23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
Hugs
and the rich man that went to hades and wanted Lazarus to dip his finger in water to cool his tongue, made me think of the well. He didn't have a bucket to draw from either... he had 5 brothers though... just saying :)
Thank You
Well, sorry Ziggy, I know that I've been very contentious, but, again, no correlation between these whatsoever, not on a theological level.
One's a historical fact, the other two are hypothetical and allegorical, respectively. Neither one relates to the other, Bible students have to be firm about this and extrapolate only what the author intended to convey. That is difficult enough, why add more variables and distraction to God's profound Word?
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
I think your just looking for an argument brother...
I admitted that what I posted had nothing to do with the husbands. I said what came to mind about thinking the husbands were dead, is the hypothetical and the parable.
I said:
I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT (husbands being dead) BECAUSE I CAME ACROSS THIS. (hypothetical and parable) .
NOT THAT ONE (hypothetical/parable) HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER, (husbands being dead) .
JUST THE CONCEPT. JUST SAYIN :)
ARE WE GOOD NOW????
MUCH LOVE!
HUGS
Yes, ...and this is why I think that you should have a very serious one-on-one with Beverley, and tell her to stop maligning God's Word and to pay attention to the details that we know are veritable facts, ...for that is where the truth and wisdom lie.
Sorry, you were just saying that the hypothetical question that the Pharisees posed to Jesus about the afterlife, just simply prompted in you the notion that maybe the Samaritan woman's 5 husbands had died, in order to both explain and mitigate on her behalf, as to why she had such numerous amount of marriages. Yes, you're right, your intention was explained and clear on this.
But, it was the allegory of Lazarus that made me think that you were now just making frivolous and unwarranted connections. ...all that a story needs is water and 5 people for you to correlate them?
I'm sorry if it appears that I'm being hyper-critical, but you see how from the time this thread started, that I've been consistently warning anyone about the pitfalls of reading too much into Scripture. So, of course, the minute that I see even a hint of it, I'm going to, hopefully justifiably, discredit it.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
No, Jesus was not being lose with his words. The context implies that Jesus was talking about wedlock, versus unmarried. This is why he made the stipulation about her current status, it differentiated between her former disposition. Jesus' point was not to enumerate all the men that she had ever slept with, whether fleeting, or not, but to whom she was married to, and to whom that she wasn't but were acting like they were - as in living together.
Sexual relations with people do not define marriages, obviously, I have no idea as to on what grounds that you would make such a claim?
Samson and the prostitute, Judah and Tamar, Potifar's wife seducing Joseph, Amnon and Tamar, ... Just the concept of concubine dispels your theory.
For, why can't two impotent people get married if companionship is merely desired?
Your marriage theory is seriously flawed, and based on conjecture.
Similar threads
