Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Doubting Thomas]

Apologetics is the shameless need to make excuses for why the bible is a pile of crap.

Apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.

[Tonus]

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.

What would the "check" have consisted of? I assume it would be blood-stained sheets. "Proving" her virginity this way would likely have required deception of some sort, wouldn't it?

[Mystical]

I know you like to think eVeryone did EvErything right as rain back then Drich, it just ain't gonna happen. Humans can't follow the law nowadays, why would they follow it back then? Now if the story about Mary said "implied Judaistic rituals" when talking about her we'd have something to go off of but last I checked: Joseph didn't believe her. Therefore if Joseph didn't believe her then I would 'extrapolate'-- as you like to do-- that she didn't have an alibi even if they did "check" her.

[Drich]

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.

What would the "check" have consisted of? I assume it would be blood-stained sheets. "Proving" her virginity this way would likely have required deception of some sort, wouldn't it?

Blood stained sheets were a way to proove the wifes claim that a husband had sex with her.

In this case the claim was that there was no sex... So ask yourself what verifiable physological change does a woman endure after her first sexual experience?

---

I know you like to think eVeryone did EvErything right as rain back then Drich, it just ain't gonna happen. Humans can't follow the law nowadays, why would they follow it back then? Now if the story about Mary said "implied Judaistic rituals" when talking about her we'd have something to go off of but last I checked: Joseph didn't believe her. Therefore if Joseph didn't believe her then I would 'extrapolate'-- as you like to do-- that she didn't have an alibi even if they did "check" her.

dismiss this any way you need to in order to maintain your faith, but know deep down that the charges and claims made were basically death sentences in that time. The claims of Marry and Joseph would have been check and verified otherwise one if not both would have been stonned to death.

It's not like it is not where someone claim to be a prophet or 'chosen' by God, without serious challenge. Look at what they did to Christ eben though He met each and every single challenge they issued.

[DeistPaladin]

His son was referred to as 'King Herod.'

No. He wasn't. Next?

[DeistPaladin]

I am not an Historian nor a Bible scholar, but I found this interesting. However, it isn't convincing one way or the other:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/200...px#Article

There's a logical fallacy called Ad Hoc Hypothesis, the abuse of which involves coming up with improvised and unsupported ad-ons that dismiss any contrary evidence, repeated as needed until all contrary evidence is dismissed. It's a mental slight of hand that is intended to wear down the skeptic and shift the burden of proof so that the skeptic must prove a negative.

The nature of the fallacy is demonstrated by the Monte Python Dead-Parrot sketch where the pet shop owner keeps improvising ad hocs to dismiss any evidence that the parrot is dead, ranging from "he's resting" to "pining for the fjords".





The logical counter to the endless stream of Ad Hoc Hypotheses is Occam's Razor. A hypothesis with many ad ons is complex. The simpler explanation is that it's exactly what it looks like.

So yes, you can speculate that when Luke said "ruler" (hegemon) that he really meant "administrator of a census being conducted in Herod the Great's client kingdom" but this seems really unlikely. You'd have to further speculate that he was called away from being governor of a province in the middle of modern-day Turkey (where he was at that time) to perform less important bureaucratic duties but that seems really unlikely. You'd need to further propose that Augustus in doing so would be stepping on the toes of the actual governor of Syria but there's no evidence for it. You'd also need to muse that the census in 9 CE was dragged out for five years to make JC even plausibly young enough to be "about 30" at the time of JtB's ministry and then truncate JtB's ministry to just a year and then... (really, long list of further ad hocs ensue).

Or you could just say it's what it looks like. Luke said "ruler" which refers to Quirinius' term as governor.

[Tonus]

In this case the claim was that there was no sex... So ask yourself what verifiable physological change does a woman endure after her first sexual experience?

Right, someone would have had to insert a finger in her vagina and check that her hymen was intact. The Bible doesn't indicate who performed such a service, or who did so in this instance. It simply tells us that Mary was pregnant. My guess is that this never was done:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Based on the wording, it would seem that the circumstances work out as so:

> Mary is impregnated miraculously, not sexually. Her hymen is intact.
> Before he takes her home (thus making the marriage official) Joseph realizes that she is pregnant, and reaches the logical conclusion that she is not a virgin. Caught in a bit of a dilemma, he decides to spare Mary the scandal and decides to divorce her "quietly" (ie, the public will assume the child is his, and not that Mary is a fornicator).
> An angel appears to Joseph and explains the circumstances and tells him to go ahead and make the marriage official.
> Joseph, not realizing that he's playing sexual second-fiddle to god, decides that this is a good idea.

Thus it seems that she wasn't checked, since a swollen belly would have been all the check that was needed. Presumably, there was no social stigma attached to sexual relations between two people who had arranged to be wed, since the timeline would indicate that Mary's pregnancy was known before Joseph made the marriage official.

What is strange is that Mary apparently kept the secret of her pregnancy from everyone, even Joseph. Or perhaps she explained it to him and he did not believe until an angel corroborated her story (a reasonable reaction on his part). Joseph is either the ultimate nice guy (willing to spare Mary the shame even after learning that she's pregnant from someone else and believing that she told him a whopper of a lie to cover it) or he's the ultimate love-struck schmuck, too smitten to properly slut-shame his new bride. Granted, had he done that the book of Matthew would have read like a day-time soap opera.

TL;DR- no one checked Mary for virginity, since sporting a baby-bump made it seem a moot point.

[Drich]

His son was referred to as 'King Herod.'

No. He wasn't. Next?

ya-huh"

He (Ceasar) however, not willing to set aside Herod's will, gave to Archelaus the half of his father's kingdom, with the title of ethnarch, the royal title to follow should he rule "virtuously". The N. T. says that he reigned (Matthew 2:22), and in Josephus in Josephus (Ant., XVII, viii, 2, ix, 2) he is called king.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07289c.htm

What else you got?

---

In this case the claim was that there was no sex... So ask yourself what verifiable physological change does a woman endure after her first sexual experience?

Right, someone would have had to insert a finger in her vagina and check that her hymen was intact. The Bible doesn't indicate who performed such a service, or who did so in this instance. It simply tells us that Mary was pregnant. My guess is that this never was done:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Based on the wording, it would seem that the circumstances work out as so:

> Mary is impregnated miraculously, not sexually. Her hymen is intact.
> Before he takes her home (thus making the marriage official) Joseph realizes that she is pregnant, and reaches the logical conclusion that she is not a virgin. Caught in a bit of a dilemma, he decides to spare Mary the scandal and decides to divorce her "quietly" (ie, the public will assume the child is his, and not that Mary is a fornicator).
> An angel appears to Joseph and explains the circumstances and tells him to go ahead and make the marriage official.
> Joseph, not realizing that he's playing sexual second-fiddle to god, decides that this is a good idea.

Thus it seems that she wasn't checked, since a swollen belly would have been all the check that was needed. Presumably, there was no social stigma attached to sexual relations between two people who had arranged to be wed, since the timeline would indicate that Mary's pregnancy was known before Joseph made the marriage official.

What is strange is that Mary apparently kept the secret of her pregnancy from everyone, even Joseph. Or perhaps she explained it to him and he did not believe until an angel corroborated her story (a reasonable reaction on his part). Joseph is either the ultimate nice guy (willing to spare Mary the shame even after learning that she's pregnant from someone else and believing that she told him a whopper of a lie to cover it) or he's the ultimate love-struck schmuck, too smitten to properly slut-shame his new bride. Granted, had he done that the book of Matthew would have read like a day-time soap opera.

TL;DR- no one checked Mary for virginity, since sporting a baby-bump made it seem a moot point.

Deu 22:
23 “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Joseph and marry weren't married at the time of Christ's conception:
luke 1: 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

If Mary Had a 'baby bump.' Then alot of questions (literal life and death questions) would have been asked.

The only way she and he both survived that ordeal was with 'proof' of her virginity.

[Searching4truth]

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.


Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

Im confused as to which court you play in, lol

[Tonus]

The only way she and he both survived that ordeal was with 'proof' of her virginity.

If they didn't know she was pregnant, why would they have wanted to check her virginity before marriage? Did they suspect her of being a fornicator? I doubt that, as I can't imagine that god would choose such a person to carry him to term.

And I understand that they were not yet officially married, that is in the part of Matthew that I quoted. As a breakdown, based on my understanding of what is written:

"Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph"

The act of taking her home would, as I understand it, make the marriage official. How was this looked upon at the time? Would it have been a problem if they'd slept together before he took her home, or would it only be a problem if they did not make it official? I'm thinking that if it was the former, then Matthew 1:18,19 makes more sense.

"but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit."

This part is a bit weird because of the last part. However, note that it does not say that it was discovered that Mary was not a virgin. It says that she was found to be pregnant. Now, unless they had pregnancy kits at the time, there are few ways to confirm this, such as morning sickness and a protruding belly.

So I wonder how they "found" her to be pregnant by holy spirit. Was she puking rainbows in the morning? This is stated before the part where Joseph is visited by an angel and told the truth, so it doesn't seem likely that her condition was discovered via angelic declaration. The words may be superfluous, or just another poorly-written sentence in the Bible.

"Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly."

Joseph is described here as her husband, in the very next sentence. Either Matthew is marking the passing of time or this indicates the point of view that being pledged to marriage conferred many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Thus, when Joseph sees that Mary is pregnant, he assumes that she has been unfaithful. If he truly knew that she was a virgin and carrying god himself in her womb, he would not fear 'exposing her to public disgrace.'

So who was it that "found" that she was pregnant through the holy spirit? It wasn't Joseph. And whoever it was decided not to tell him. Even Mary either didn't tell him or couldn't convince him, requiring the dream-visit of a heavenly creature to give him the information (Let's put aside the ramifications of the dream-angel, since that's a whole other potential can of worms). And how did they "find" this out? Checking her for virgin status when it was already known that she was pregnant doesn't answer the question, and frankly is pretty creepy.