Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Max_Kolbe]

I can tell you are not a historian, Max. It shows through brightly.

"PROPOSALS "


Here is the problem. The author feels the need to make proposals to get his bible bullshit off the hook. The reason he outlines prior are sufficient to dismiss Luke as a bullshit artist. The only reason to try to twist the facts is apologetics. Apologetics is the shameless need to make excuses for why the bible is a pile of crap.

I think writing "I am not an Historian" was a pretty good clue that I'm not an Historian. I thought it was an interesting article and admitted that there is a discrepancy. My son is an Historian and Greek and Roman History is his specialty. I'll have to ask him about this.

---

Here is something else I will have to look into: I wonder if any ancient Christians have written about this, if they noticed any discrepancies in dates and so forth. Interesting stuff.

[Mystical]

Please follow up with his answer, I would really like to know either way.

[Max_Kolbe]

What is there to follow up on?

[Mystical]

His answer?

[Minimalist]

I can tell you are not a historian, Max. It shows through brightly.

"PROPOSALS "


Here is the problem. The author feels the need to make proposals to get his bible bullshit off the hook. The reason he outlines prior are sufficient to dismiss Luke as a bullshit artist. The only reason to try to twist the facts is apologetics. Apologetics is the shameless need to make excuses for why the bible is a pile of crap.

I think writing "I am not an Historian" was a pretty good clue that I'm not an Historian. I thought it was an interesting article and admitted that there is a discrepancy. My son is an Historian and Greek and Roman History is his specialty. I'll have to ask him about this.

---

Here is something else I will have to look into: I wonder if any ancient Christians have written about this, if they noticed any discrepancies in dates and so forth. Interesting stuff.

Good idea.

You can show him this.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...inius.html

Historian Richard Carrier takes the time to demolish the apologetic claims that try to show that there is no contradiction between the only two gospels which mention the story.

His conclusion?

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

[Anomalocaris]

I would think any probable, and likely suspected, adulteress such as Mary would not wish to help seal her own fate by removing ambiguity about when and under what circumstances she conceived.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Herod the great was not the only Herod to rule over judea. His son was referred to as 'King Herod.' If you see Herod the great it speaks of the Father if you see King Herod it speaks of Herod the Great's son. Who ruled durning the time in question.

You know, it's sissy, pansy-assed Christians with your puny faith that are such an embarrassment to True Christians ™ like myself. Here you go, using that science, history and logic to justify and buttress your faith. Then when you do it badly, the atheists pwn the crap out of you because you're playing in their court.

Had you been more careful, you'd know that the ruler of Judea where Elizebeth lived was Herod Archelaus who held the title Ethnarch, or provincial ruler who didn't rise to the level of king. But that's what you get for having such puny faith that you need to find facts to support it.

Brother Pastor Deacon Fred said it so well when he declared, "You don't need facts when you have Jesus!" Amen! Glory!

Clearly, you have neither.

Faith is the court in which I play and it is one in which the godless heathen trash will never be able to challenge me because all their science and facts and history are of no avail to them. Why, I read this part of the Babble and say, "Glory! A ten-year pregnancy! A miracle that proves the divinity of Jesus for no normal human fetus takes that long to develop. Checkmate atheists!

That, my friends, is the power of faith!

Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

[Drich]

I would think any probable, and likely suspected, adulteress such as Mary would not wish to help seal her own fate by removing ambiguity about when and under what circumstances she conceived.

Mary's virginity would have been 'checked' on a matter like this either to persecute her for being unfaithful or possiably him for having sex with his wife before she was ready to conceive.

Because in that day that would be the only reason not to consumate the marriage.

[Mystical]

I don't recall the bible saying anything about her being "checked". I thought Joseph didn't believe her, until an angel told him to.

[Drich]

I don't recall the bible saying anything about her being "checked". I thought Joseph didn't believe her, until an angel told him to.

Mary lived under the old covenant and therefore subject to the rules and laws of the OT. Did you read the OT? or are you looking for proof of her virginity in the NT?