Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pardon me if I offend any religions here, as I have no intent; yet from what I understand, the calender was quite different years ago, as several in the Bible were over 100 years old.
of course, many of the widespread practices of biblical times and for that matter of other cultures in other parts of the world right now) were often very different from current mainstream practice and belief in north America and western Europe. for that matter, many of the cultural mores and the general world view right, wrong, or indifferent of 1916 America are rather different from 2016 America as well. we should be careful of projecting our current beliefs (especially regarding them as a priori absolutely right and correct) onto the past and strictly judging on a "provincial" and "anachronistic " basis.
OTOH, this shouldn't stop us from seeing the past clearly and not ignoring that slavery, torture, human sacrifice for example happened and were and are ultimately bad things by most any standards then or now.
"those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes."
Pardon me if I offend any religions here, as I have no intent; yet from what I understand, the calender was quite different years ago, as several in the Bible were over 100 years old.
Does anyone have any knowledge about this?
my two bits: the year was the same in the sense that it was roughly 365 days the Romans had the "Julian" calendar (still used in some Churches for liturgical purposes) based on solar reckoning. other cultures (like the Israelites) had a "lunar" calendar. think people probably didn't live that much longer (or shorter) than now because of calendar reckoning differences.
as far as the bible is concerned, some may have been granted longer lives than others but a case could be made that the apparent long lives of the patriarchs in the old testament MAY be more an example of a FIGURATIVE way of saying they were blessed by God with great wisdom and respect (great age being equated with great wisdom and knowledge). certainly, various numbers were important to the Hebrews and specific numbers like "40" and "70" and "12" and '7" and multiples thereof (yes even "666") had special significance to them---if only to say that "40 years in the desert" for the Israelites or "40 days in the wilderness" MAY simply mean "a (religiously) important/long time" passed and that 40 in this case somehow SYMBOLICALLY linked various important and sacred events in their history.
IMHO, taken literally or figuratively such numbers may have real meaning and interest in a religious sense for folks then AND now.
hope maybe that makes a little sense and maybe is of a little help to you.
Last edited by georgeinbandonoregon; 01-24-2016 at 03:33 PM..
It appears Mary was 13 when finally married Joseph. Chronologically we haven't a handle on when she had children beyond Jesus. The engagement may have lasted one year and it's speculated that they were consumed by Jesus' revealed role? When they finally consumate their marriage just isn`t documented (the Jewish wedding and procedure is remeniscent of the bride (us) joining Jesus) Jesus' half brothers were James, Joses (joseph) Judas and Simon. Mary is believed to have died possibly in England age undetermined. Young age marriages were customary back in the day similar to our old West. Life expectancy was shaply cut short compared to biblical figures like Moses, Noah and Methuselah. 50's perhaps.
sorry but for the first time ever I heard from a Christian who told me she was 12, that's disgusting..
Ortusn,.. hi.
Did you bother asking what his/her source was (?) Because Mary's age is never stated in the Protestant Bible.. Her age is purely speculative. Her background is elaborated on in non-Biblical sources, but those writings were ultimately determined non-canonical. If your sole source is a single Christian, you should investigate further.. well, unless your sole purpose was to try and demonize/slander Biblical figures (ie- as 'disgusting'), and those who believe in them, and not a sincere pursuit of knowledge... then troll on.
peace.
[quote=Babe_Ruth;42761840]Ortusn,.. hi.
Did you bother asking what his/her source was (?) Because Mary's age is never stated in the Protestant Bible..
which strange as it may seem is absolutely the SAME as the "catholic bible" in this respect---since they are both identical in content as far as the "new testament" concerned. agreed there is no exact age given for Mary when she gave birth recorded in any scripture BUT (as mentioned earlier in this thread) Luke at least records that she was a virgin "because (she) did not know man."
The Bible doesn't say how old Mary was so we can only guess. I'd say she was an adult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
