SLM

@GratefulDisciple I'd agree re the difference between sola and solo. I too enjoy tradition and writings. The trick is to ferret out what the bible says vs what someone's Tradition might say. The Marian dogmas are an example. So, in short, "word of God" as shown in my answer does attest to very early tradition that identifies it as scripture.

@Kris are all those who deny Christ Jesus delusional?

@AndrewShanks That sounds right. It's been awhile. I would agree about the typing. I still maintain the passover on the 14th at day's start, burial on 15th (leaven gone), resurrection at day's end 16th, and thus resting on the 17th.

@AndrewShanks Don't recall, but did find this citation from a previous answer of mine. Exo 34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Odd. Year's end at Tishri. Month start at Nisan.

@AndrewShanks years ago, I worked on the times of Noah and believe the Fall New Year is shown. Believe there's also the view of creation beginning in the Fall. In any event, the New Year was switched or at least clearly defined in Ex 12:2

@AndrewShanks The religious calendar starts Nisan 1, as it has from the Exodus. The civil calendar starts month 7 day 1, blowing of Trumpets. You can work through the times of Noah's flood to perhaps glean more info.

@AndrewShanks you "what "first month" actually refers to/means". We know from 1 Sam 20:5, 18 and 20:27 that the new moon marked the start of a month. So, at Exo 12:2, the new moon marking the new year would have to fall after the Spring Equinox. This solves the "extra month" question of a Metonic cycle.

@HoldToTheRod @HoldToTheRod my understanding is LDS do believe Christ was created at some time. But go ahead and reply here with a comment. Also, don't you believe Satan was created, that CHrist and Satan are angels?

I was trying to avoid the belief of "soul sleep", which seems to be the answer here. This belief apparently depends on the idea that there was a time when Christ Jesus did not exist. That belief is not Christianity at its core. Thus, the list of denominations in the OP that did not include JW, LDS, etc.

Is the OP assuming that "Real Presence" is the same thing as the "Catholic Mass" (aka Transubstantiation) or as two completely separate ideas (which is what they are)?

@AdithiaKusno Well, we've probably taken this as far as possible and are into speculation. I understand your position, if their marriage wasn't consummated. All the best -

@AdithiaKusno Here's a thought. Perhaps Mordecai was in fact bringing her up to be a wife for himself, but before they actually became married, consummating it, the king called for virgins. Esther was one and had to go. And we know the rest of the story. In a sense, this is, after all, the story of Mary as well.

@AdithiaKusno As mentioned, it is not a problem to find scholars who agree and disagree with the text and with other scholars. The problem IMO is how a supposed non-virgin, a married woman, would be presented to the king who requested virgins. There are a couple ways around this. 1) The king really didn't mean virgins. 2) The chamberlain and king didn't know how to determine if a woman was a virgin. 3) It's unimportant to the bigger picture, so scholars ignore this obvious problem. Best -

So appreciate the conversation, but like the virgin sign of Isaiah, it won't do either of us any good to argue for a non-virgin as equivalent to and rather than a virgin.

Like I said, there's all sorts of translations and scholars who look at the verse and can argue either way. My challenge is for you to prove that Esther, Mordecai, the chamberlain, and all the rest involved in the search, disobeyed the king's command to bring in the virgins (2:2). It simply couldn't have happened. Everyone knows how to tell if a girl is a virgin (I already pointed out Scripture), regardless of how some of translated that verse for "woman's estate" to "for himself".

loved her, and brought her up as if she had been his daughter, and called her so, as the Targum. The Rabbins, as Jarchi and Aben Ezra observe, say, he took her in order to make her his wife; and so the Septuagint render it; though perhaps no more may be intended by that version than that he brought her up to woman's estate.

As to Josephus and "uncle", do you reject all of Josephus or just this understanding?

The king, as well as the eunuch keeping the virgins, know how to tell if a woman is a virgin.

bayithamashiyach.com/Esther_2.pdf Take a look at this translation.

What kind of sign from God is it if a young woman (not a virgin) gets pregnant?

@AdithiaKusno does your group teach that Esther/Mordecai were married, but didn't consummate the marriage (she was a virgin)? Or do they teach they were married and consummated, but a non-virgin was sent to the king anyway?

The problem to overcome isn't particularly whether you can find a scholar who agrees with you or not. The problem is you have a king who calls (commands, decrees) specifically for virgins, which even the Septuagint acknowledges in 2:2, and people think a married woman (Esther to Mordecai) would pass muster. She wouldn't. The chamberlain wouldn't have even given her audience, unless she was a virgin. He'd have lost his head too, along with Mordecai and Esther for disobeying a command!

found this; see pages 82-83 for your answers, like with Josephus: all the best; bye. books.google.com/…

Traditions: As a result of her mother’s death, Mordecai had to care for Esther’s nursing. According to one tradition, he could not find a wet nurse and he himself miraculously had milk and nursed her (Gen. Rabbah 30:8). Another tradition has Mordecai’s wife nursing the infant (Midrash Tehilim, on Ps. 22:23). The Babylonian tradition maintains that Esther was Mordecai’s wife. Esth. 2:7 states: “Mordecai adopted her as his own daughter [literally: took her le-vat],” which the midrash understands as: Mordecai took her le-bayit, that is, as a wife (BT Megillah loc. cit.).

Well again, there's nothing from early Jewish tradition. The comment about Babylonian Talmud, still much later, reaffirms the Christian and Jewish tradition. Esther was a virgin; she wasn't married to Mordecai. The king wasn't stupid; he would know whether his decree was followed or not (see Deut. 22:17). No one was going to deceive or disobey his order. Again, the idea of a "married" "old guardian" to "young virgin" appears simply as a redaction to the Infancy tale. So far, you've shown no early tradition that a non-virgin was sent as a virgin to the king.

I keep waiting to read the quotes from the Talmud or Sages that supports the idea that Mordecai and Esther were married. The earliest reference from Josephus confirms they were "father" and "daughter". Moreover, it is rather disingenuous to suggest they were married and then Esther given as a virgin to the king. If that were so, they'd both be dead for lying to the king! Having explained this, it only remains to understand why this "old guardian" and "young virgin" tale was a later redaction (again no actual Sage or Talmud quotes from the earliest times) to support Infancy Gospel of James.