(September 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm)Drich Wrote: ah, no. I thought it funny that you defaulted to matthew when Luke was being discussed, but I see now you only intended to use matthew because if you stopped mid verse you had a chance to formulate a biblically "Based" argument. All one has to do to refute your argument is to Keep reading matthew's account.DP was using Luke to discuss the dates surrounding Mary's pregnancy. I am using Matthew since it is the only one that provides sufficient detail to examine the circumstances surrounding Joseph's actions. I did not stop "mid-verse" and including verses 20-25 does nothing to "refute" my argument. Nor am I trying to formulate a biblical argument. I made it pretty clear what I was discussing.
All that your 'explanation' does is take a confusing text and make it even more so. Again: why would anyone check the virginity of a woman who was found to be pregnant? How did they know that she was pregnant "through holy spirit"? Why would Joseph be concerned about bringing shame... or even death... to a woman carrying god himself in her womb?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
