nit-picky because I expect to be able to trust a commentary.

Doug Mangum said:

Mary too is a passive character, as all verbs concerning her are passive.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Tom Reynolds said:

Joseph had the choice of 'keeping his wife' or divorcing her quietly... We could get into a long discussion of Jewish wedding customs but we can refer to her as his wife although they have not had the second ceremony or consummated the marriage.

Or Joseph could have denounced her and had her stoned. 

It appears that Joseph truly loved Mary. He knew that he had not performed the ritual of inviting a child into this world with her so he must have assumed that she and some other man did perform the ritual . IMHO if he was thinking about divorcing her quietly instead of having her stoned shows that he loved her so much that if she wanted another man he was going to let her go.  [[most men would have had her stoned - showing that not only Mary was qualified for this task but so was Joseph]]  [[commentary by me (not found in Logos) ]]

MJ. Smith said:

Denise said:

I'm guessing he crossed many enlivened arguments among 'the breathren'

Well, I could go back a generation to his uncle who founded a number of Church of Christ churches - three in our county alone. By the time I came along the three in our county had their differences over music (2-1 against instruments) but the pair I knew (1 for 1 against instruments) didn't talk to the 3rd church - I never knew the reason although I had relatives in it ... but we were the only one that recognized the female preacher in the church across the river. I've come to suspect that the fact her sister was our postmistress, weigh-station owner, gas station owner AND superintendent of our Sunday School might have had something to do with it.

But, yes, there is a very good reason I have much sympathy for your Literalist Church of the Bible. I too retain the RM focus on the 2 L's - literal and logic. And my two siblings who went to Harding were taught care and logic.

Interesting MJ—I fussed with CofC for eons over some of these issues (as you likely already know).  

In fact, I have an exhaustive power point presentation on the instrumental music issue that was prepared for a debate on this topic.

I will say, however, that your upbringing would explain your emphasis on close Scripture reading (which is why I almost always click on your posts if I see them).  

Notwithstanding our vast theological difference—I do appreciate CofC research tenacity.  

Simply put, a person better be ready to tangle when they encounter CofC.

MJ. Smith said:

Puddin’ said:

Simply put, a person better be ready to tangle when they encounter CofC.

Or as I remember it, hours long debates between Dad, an elder, and his cousin, a deacon. Everyone left them alone in the living room (back when living rooms were formal). Note that Dad normally referred to Jack as his 5th cousin (1st cousin 1 removed; 2nd cousin 1 removed ... add them together and he's a 5th cousin) and met with him around the dining room table. But getting the Bible right is serious business - and Jack as a disabled logger had plenty of time to research his position. The shared Finnish blood ensured they had a constant supply of coffee and cookies - my job was the cookies . Fortunately, their shared Irish Catholic blood had not given them tempers.

I can soooo envisage those discussions🤓🤪!  

CofC are often a Calvinists worst nightmare—but I better digress before I get started 🤔😉.

Puddin’ said:

Notwithstanding our vast theological difference—I do appreciate CofC research tenacity.  

I think that's perhaps the single greatest strength of the conservative wing of the Restoration Movement - a relentless focus on parsing out the text.