Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
old man emu

An interpretation of Luke 2:49 - 52

Recommended Posts

Luke 2:49 - 52 tells the story of the 12-year-old Jesus staying behind in the Temple at Jerusalem after the Passover and his parents looking for him for three days before finding him amongst the rabbis. When asked the usual parental question, "What have you been up to?', Jesus replied "Don't you know I must be about my father's business?"

 

Now this is usually interpreted as Jesus referring to his Father - God, but I think there could be a more realistic interpretation in that he was talking about his father, Joseph.

 

Jesus was 12 years-old, which is about the time that Jewish boys have their Bar Mitzvah  and are considered adults. Joseph had been the visible father figure in Jesus' life, and no doubt was teaching Jesus the carpentry trade. Could it not have been that Jesus, now accepted as an adult in Jewish society was doing what any good Jewish son would do for the family business?  Luke 2:46 says, "they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions." Could if be possible that, after attending Passover rituals at the Temple, he saw the need for more seating and was trying to line up a deal with the Rabbis for Joseph and him to supply pews for the Temple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a long shot there, OME. Jesus has never been recorded as referring to Joseph as his father. In every case, when Jesus said "Father", he was referring to God.

 

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).

 

"But he [Joseph] had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus". (Matthew 1:25).

 

In the Temple, when the 12 yr old Jesus was questioning the teachers;

 

"Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.'

'Why were you searching for me?" he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house? (Luke 2:47-50).

 

The direct reference to the Temple being his Fathers house, seems to make things pretty clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, onetrack said:

Bit of a long shot there, OME.

I fair dinkum apologise Onetrack for offending your religious sensibilities. I meant it as an amusing post, not intending to cause offence. Of course, the incident is related to Christ's purpose, and "Father" definitely refers to God the Father.

 

I might take a point of order though. The use of the word "house" is a new insertion in modern versions of the Bible. In the King James version, the words used are "about my Father's business". Those are the words I know, and that is why I proposed my interpretation, knowing full well that what I was writing was not the correct interpretation. It was a joke, Joyce.

 

Interesting, though, is that it took Mary and Joseph a total of three days to find him after they discovered he was the first "Home Aloner". If he had shown such a great interest in the scriptures, wouldn't they know about it and figure that he might be with the Rabbis? A kid like that wouldn't be traipsing around where Mary Magdalene was growing up. I wonder if the three days was a hint at his later life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been done to death in other threads, but isn't the whole "virgin" bit a misunderstanding of the original Hebrew?

 

So it was really just a normal birth but the kid grew up with a messiah complex.  I'm sure it happens all the time, in fact a few of them make it into politics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all of it written decades and centuries later by people who were not there and had political motives.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why wait till he was 30 or so? If I was god, I would have him descend from heaven in a spectacular manner.

Bugger, this is not allowed because the believers must not have it too easy.. so how about jesus suddenly appears somewhere out of sight?

 

And, I want more stories about when Jesus was a carpenter. Did he use divine powers to get rid of warps or not? I sure would use magic when nobody was watching.

Edited by Bruce Tuncks
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Did he use divine powers to get rid of warps or not? I sure would use magic when nobody was watching.

You don't think that mere humans can do concealed dovetail jointing, do you?

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was a carpenter, not a weaver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 21/07/2020 at 12:07 PM, old man emu said:

and his parents looking for him for three days before finding him amongst the rabbis.

 

On 21/07/2020 at 12:07 PM, old man emu said:

he saw the need for more seating and was trying to line up a deal with the Rabbis for Joseph

Is this a typo; did Joseph keep rabbits? A sticky key perhaps.

Edited by willedoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY believe anything an ENGLISH KING wrote.

It would be however he wanted it to be !.

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, willedoo said:

Is this a typo; did Joseph keep rabbits? A sticky key perhaps.

Caught out again!. I should have used the irregular plural רבנים rabanim 

 

This Hebrew is all Greek to me.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Getting back to the bible, what is the theology of judges 19? That is when this guy put his mates woman and his daughter out to appease a mob.

Edited by Bruce Tuncks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an accepted fact that some people here are not slaves to the Bible, and some others can accept that it is not actually The Word of God, but an exposition of a lifestyle philosophy, and there there are still more who accept it without question. 

 

What I posted initially was meant to be a bit of humour, and I didn't expect it to remain active for this long. I certainly wasn't aiming to open up a Pandora's box. So I really would like this thread to be closed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speking for myself,  I find it fun to make fun of religion. That's nothing compared to what religious people used to do to people like me.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/07/2020 at 6:51 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

what is the theology of judges 19

There may not be any theological aspect in Judges 19. You have to remember that the books of the Old Testament are a cultural record of the Hebrews, a record that intertwines the secular and spiritual. We also have to deal with the problem of cultural diversity. Asking about the theology of Judges 19 shows, as expected, a European cultural outlook that lacks an understanding of the way relationships and status of men and women operated in ancient societies. 

 

To the modern reader with a European cultural background, Judges 19 is an horrendous story without a theological message, but it relates what was acceptable culturally at the time it was written. In other present day cultures, the story is recognisable. The value of a cultural context can often get lost in translation. When translating another people’s way of life, language often fails us as it does not give the necessary equivalents. The story of the concubine in Judges 19 is an example of value lost in translation. The word concubine is often associated with sexually explicit relationships. However, in some cultures, concubine can represent a lower status wife who has not received a bride price. This becomes a challenge to translate as western cultures do not have the bride price marriage system. The understanding of this story can be enriched when one understands the full value of the unnamed woman in this passage. This story holds cultural context that can be related to cultures where the bride price marriage system is still followed.

 

In answer to the question, I suggest the reading of https://sites.stedwards.edu/pangaea/judges-19-the-story-of-the-unnamed-woman/  It explains Judges 19 in a secular way with no Bible waving.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am told  that in the early language of the area at the time, Virgin and young girl are the same word..That would explain it all except for those that wish to promote the concept of immaculate conception. which does take a bit of imagination as to how and why..Joseph had to be in the role to protect an otherwise single pregnant woman who would probably not have survived had he not been around. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the word "virgin" comes from:

c. 1200, "unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church," from Anglo-French and Old French virgine  from Latin virginem  "maiden, unwedded girl or woman," The meaning "young woman in a state of inviolate chastity" is recorded from c. 1300.

 

Concubine: in reference to Hebrew, Greek, Roman and other civilizations where the position was recognized by law, "a wife of inferior condition, a secondary wife," from Latin concubina (fem.), "one who lives unmarried with a married man." Usually the concubine was of a lower social order, but the institution, though below matrimonium, was less reproachful than adulterium or stuprum (sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman other than one in slavery or concubinage).

 

Concubines were allowed by the Greek and Roman laws, and for many centuries they were more or less tolerated by the church, for both priests and laymen. The concubine of a priest was sometimes called a priestess.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks OME. Gosh if I have trouble with my different culture, you can imagine what those poor Lutheran missionaries endured at hermannsburg. After about 40 years they gave up broken hearted.  They had found it easy to " convert " the aborigines to christianity, but after 40 years, they still retained their old ideas and had just added some whitefeller gods on top.

Just think about the prodigal son... how would an aborigine relate to that? they had no concept of private property.

And, I reckon their biblical culture was awful, as was the aborigines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our culture was pretty bad too. I have recently ordered a photo from the NT archives which shows a group of aborigines at Alice Springs ( about 1920 I guess ) in chains " to be marched to jail at Port August". As a kid , I never heard of such a thing and to this day I reckon that the march was impossible.

This was a genuine atrocity I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you meant Port Augusta, which I think you did, it's 1200 km by road. If not impossible, then horrendous.

 

This lack of cultural understanding is the reason we are having so much trouble now working how to get the two cultures to find common ground. We are suffering from the 18th/19th Century concept of the "Noble Savage", which was shattered when Europeans met the reality of Aboriginal existence. It was made worse, and here I will accept Bruce's dislike for religions, by the evangelistic zealotry of some, and the poor style of life that the average pioneers endured themselves.

 

Human Nature doesn't change much over time. Those average pioneers had their views and beliefs molded by rumour, innuendo and the media in just the same way that a lot of people are molded by soshul meeja today. The men of these times held views that are anathema today - like women had no say in politics, or the workplace.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, OME, I did mean to say Port Augusta.

Did you know that they mounted a spirited argument to be the seat of the Australian parliament? It is close to the center ( east  to west) and down where most of the population lives. It is also a port.

I reckon it would have been a good idea to put Canberra there.

Getting back to those chained aborigines, I have not been able to find the photo I remember but there are NT archivists, and I got sent a similar picture of chained aborigines, but not the one with Heavitree gap in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...