Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[DeistPaladin]

Archelaus the half of his father's kingdom, with the title of ethnarch,

Ethnarch is a lesser title to king.

[Drich]

Archelaus the half of his father's kingdom, with the title of ethnarch,

Ethnarch is a lesser title to king.

Keep reading sport:
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.

---

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.

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.

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah happened. His mother Mary was engaged to marry Joseph. But before they married, he learned that she was expecting a baby. (She was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.) 19 Mary’s husband, Joseph, was a good man. He did not want to cause her public disgrace, so he planned to divorce her secretly.

20 But after Joseph thought about this, an angel from the Lord came to him in a dream. The angel said, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to accept Mary to be your wife. The baby inside her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son. You will name him Jesus.[b] Give him that name because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this happened to make clear the full meaning of what the Lord said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will be pregnant and will give birth to a son. They will name him Immanuel.”[c] (Immanuel means “God with us.”)

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the Lord’s angel told him to do. He married Mary. 25 But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And he named him Jesus.

In verse 19 they were what we call engauged, not married so the 'divorce' was little more than what we consider a break up. People did not date like we do now. even the bethrothal process was considered a form of commitment, but not actual marriage.

So again verse 19 they were not married, then Joseph saw she was prego, so rather than have her stonned to death he was just going to her Father and cancel the engaugement. But the an angell told him what was up.

Then he married her. Now because she was showing before they were married there would be questions to the nature of the father. again a life and death matter for one of them is not both. So she would have to say she was a virgin which would not have been accepted on her word thus she was checked. The fact that both of them lived to be married means she was checked by people who would chop at the bit to put them to death over something like this.

[DeistPaladin]

Keep reading sport:
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.

Oh, thanks for reminding me, sweety (I can condescend too). When Joseph returned from exile in Egypt after Herod the king died, that's when he decided not to go to his home town in Bethlehem because his son reigned there (one can do that without being a king).

That, of course, was the Matthew version which had Jesus born in Joseph's HOUSE in Bethlehem, he fled to Egypt and resettled into Nazareth.

Here are the relevant passages:

2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
...
2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
...
2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
...
2:19-20 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
...
2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

So we've established that the Gospels refer to Herod the Great as "king" and Archelaus by his name.

In Luke's version, where Joseph's home town was Nazareth and Mary would give birth in Bethlehem in a manger, Mary conceived during...

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,

But hey, maybe Luke's style differed enough from Matthew's that he would refer to Archelaus as "Herod, the king of Judea". So I looked up the footnotes of my Oxford Annotated Bible and it doesn't indicated any controversy about the matter, that the passage refers to King Herod the Great and the time-frame would be 4 BCE or before. Can you cite the passage where Josephus refers to Archelaus as "Herod, King of Judea" or any scholarly opinion that Luke was referring to Archelaus?

[Anomalocaris]

You are arguing whether a piece of crap that spawned some rediculous bullshit does in fact say its bullshit? The fact that it's crap doesn't make what it says irrelevent?

[Drich]

Keep reading sport:
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.

Oh, thanks for reminding me, sweety (I can condescend too). When Joseph returned from exile in Egypt after Herod the king died, that's when he decided not to go to his home town in Bethlehem because his son reigned there (one can do that without being a king).

That, of course, was the Matthew version which had Jesus born in Joseph's HOUSE in Bethlehem, he fled to Egypt and resettled into Nazareth.

Here are the relevant passages:

2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
...
2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
...
2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
...
2:19-20 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
...
2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

So we've established that the Gospels refer to Herod the Great as "king" and Archelaus by his name.

1/2 truth. Archelaus is only mentioned in Verse two, every other time Matthew mentions Archelaus he simple refers to him as herod, the ruler or King of Galalee
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2264&t=KJV

But hey, maybe Luke's style differed enough from Matthew's that he would refer to Archelaus as "Herod, the king of Judea". So I looked up the footnotes of my Oxford Annotated Bible and it doesn't indicated any controversy about the matter, that the passage refers to King Herod the Great and the time-frame would be 4 BCE or before.

Herod the Great is always Identified as "H The Great" or King H 'the Great.' in Mat

In Luke 3 Luke attempts to separate the various herods, but ultimately refers to the ruler of Galalee as King Herod or simply Herod.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?sea...tnumber=26
Remember Luke is also the writer of acts and as such all of what I said applies to the book of acts as well. (Which starts at the death of Jesus 33AD well past the reign of HTG)

Can you cite the passage where Josephus refers to Archelaus as "Herod, King of Judea" or any scholarly opinion that Luke was referring to Archelaus?

already did in my orginal quote.

[DeistPaladin]

1/2 truth. Archelaus is only mentioned in Verse two, every other time Matthew mentions Archelaus he simple refers to him as herod, the ruler or King of Galalee
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2264&t=KJV

Nice try. Archelaus is not Antipas, which the passages refer to.

Herod the Great is always Identified as "H The Great" or King H 'the Great.' in Mat

Not in the Matt passages I quoted.

In Luke 3 Luke attempts to separate the various herods, but ultimately refers to the ruler of Galalee [sic] as King Herod or simply Herod.

The ruler of Galilee was Antipas.

Remember Luke is also the writer of acts and as such all of what I said applies to the book of acts as well. (Which starts at the death of Jesus 33AD well past the reign of HTG)

Again, Antipas is not Achelaus and I find it highly dubious that the same author of Luke's Gospel also wrote Acts. Luke has Jesus rising into Heaven on the day of his resurrection. Acts has Jesus terry for 40 days.

Can you cite ... any scholarly opinion that Luke was referring to Archelaus?

[Drich]

I appearently made a mistake. where I said Herod ruled Galalee I was wrong. He ruled over Judea, that is why Christ grew up in galalee.

[Tonus]

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?

[Drich]

1/2 truth. Archelaus is only mentioned in Verse two, every other time Matthew mentions Archelaus he simple refers to him as herod, the ruler or King of Galalee
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2264&t=KJV

Nice try. Archelaus is not Antipas, which the passages refer to.

Herod the Great is always Identified as "H The Great" or King H 'the Great.' in Mat

Not in the Matt passages I quoted.

In Luke 3 Luke attempts to separate the various herods, but ultimately refers to the ruler of Galalee [sic] as King Herod or simply Herod.

The ruler of Galilee was Antipas.

Remember Luke is also the writer of acts and as such all of what I said applies to the book of acts as well. (Which starts at the death of Jesus 33AD well past the reign of HTG)

Again, Antipas is not Achelaus and I find it highly dubious that the same author of Luke's Gospel also wrote Acts. Luke has Jesus rising into Heaven on the day of his resurrection. Acts has Jesus terry for 40 days.

Can you cite ... any scholarly opinion that Luke was referring to Archelaus?

Why do you need 'scholarly opinion?' As luke points out in chapter 3 he divides the herodian line into regions. So if He says King Herod of Galalee he means antipiuis, if he is speaking of the king herod of Judea he means Archelaus. Your going to have to read the context of Luke's writing to determine who he is speaking of. Rather than look to a 'scholar' to tell you what to think.

[max-greece]

"25 But Joseph did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. "

Afterwards however, they fucked like rabbits. So much for the virgin Mary - no wonder Mark mentions all those brothers and sisters.