Mary's 10 Year Pregnancy!

[Drich]

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?

Who would have believed her? If a 40 year old man bought the rights to a 12 or 13 year old girl (which was considered "18"/the magic legal age back then,) and she show up prego, before she was to be married, you don't think their would be a question or two?? even if it were a life and death matter? Do you think if she went to court with the story of being a virgin something that easy to check for would not have been checked? To make such a claim (a claim that full fills prophesy) were it not true was a death sentence in of itself, let alone the societal/sexual morality issue.

[DeistPaladin]

We’re not talking about Evolution. We’re talking about historical facts and your rejection of them in the face of overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary on the matter.

Show me the facts that convinces the scholars then.

EDIT TO ADD: And nice dodge, by the way. I think we both know why.

Do you know why even Bart Ehrman cites scriptures in order to justify Jesus’ existence? Because he knows that the New Testament is the best attested works we have from antiquity and it is absurd to rule out using it in reference to Jesus.

Maybe someday we'll live in a truly rational world where referring to religious mythology as "historical documents" will get you laughed out of the room.

Do historians like Ehrman also consider the Iliad to be a historical document or are Christian myths being given special treatment?

To say that a historian is not allowed to reference Christian writings to establish the existence of Jesus is like saying we cannot reference Tacitus and Suetonius in order to establish facts about ancient Rome simply because they were Roman.

The problem is not one of association. The problem is one of the nature of the source material. Mythology isn't history.

Ehrman has no motive whatsoever to believe Jesus existed and yet he laughs at people like you, why is that?

I'm not concerned who is laughing at whom. I'm concerned with the facts. Show me the facts and I will believe.

I used to believe you were fairly open-minded, but after learning that you ascribe to the Jesus Myth, I now know you’re not.

What you believe about me or don't believe is not important. What can you prove?

Even someone as biased as Richard Dawkins admits that Jesus existed.

Richard Dawkins can believe whatever he wants. If he wants to convince others, he needs to provide reasons.

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. I accept evolution because of the evidence.

It doesn’t matter; you’re appealing to the testimony on experts with one but rejecting the testimony of experts on the other. It’s inconsistent.

No, it's not and I've already explained why.

The same evidence that convinces them that other historical figures existed- just more of it, ancient manuscripts.

What manuscripts?

[Minimalist]

Show me the facts that convinces the scholars then.

He can't.

[DeistPaladin]

Show me the facts that convinces the scholars then.

He can't.

Hence the endless ad hominems, appeals to ridicule, attempts to poison the well, appeals to authority and guilt by false association.

[Minimalist]

I think it is a line of shit that they all fall for.

They grew up hearing that "all scholars" believe in jesus - obviously, only in the West. Then it becomes, "all reputable scholars" which, by definition means that anyone who questions their happy horseshit can't be "reputable."

Ehrman has a PH. D and a Master of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. He may know about textual criticism - in fact he is one of the foremost authorities of our time - but that is not history.

[Tonus]

Who would have believed her? If a 40 year old man bought the rights to a 12 or 13 year old girl (which was considered "18"/the magic legal age back then,) and she show up prego, before she was to be married, you don't think their would be a question or two??

Well, they could simply have told the truth. There is no account that the community was aware of the fact that a virgin was carrying a child. It all seems secretive, to the degree that even Joseph required divine intervention before he knew the truth.

Not only does the account not mention that she was checked for virginity, the only time anyone seems to be aware of her situation is through the action of holy spirit or angelic messengers. Based on your explanation, we are to understand that a pregnant woman was checked and found to be a virgin, but no one seemed to consider this to be notable.

even if it were a life and death matter? Do you think if she went to court with the story of being a virgin something that easy to check for would not have been checked? To make such a claim (a claim that full fills prophesy) were it not true was a death sentence in of itself, let alone the societal/sexual morality issue.

Hence why Joseph decided to make the marriage official. This implies that her situation was not known to anyone that god had not specifically notified via angels or dreams. Joseph would not have been concerned about bringing Mary public shame if it was understood that she was carrying the fetus of god himself. He knew that taking her into his home would lead people to believe that the child was his. Why there was this need for deception and secrecy, the text does not say, and I find it somewhat awkward.

[Zone]

Only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth so apparently there wasn't a consensus on this or it wasn't considered a big enough deal to mention. The original Hebrew prophecy refers a "young woman" rather than specifying her as a virgin. And also virgin births of various great historical figures in the ancient world and the odd god were apparently quite common.

[DeistPaladin]

Only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth so apparently there wasn't a consensus on this or it wasn't considered a big enough deal to mention. The original Hebrew prophecy refers a "young woman" rather than specifying her as a virgin. And also virgin births of various great historical figures in the ancient world and the odd god were apparently quite common.

More importantly, reading Isaiah 7 (the entire chapter), it's clear the statement wasn't a "prophecy" of future events but a sign from Yahweh that providence favored king Ahaz in his war with Syria. His statement "God with us" as the name for the child reflects a promise that Yahweh will not abandon Ahaz in his moment of need, not a claim that the child would be the divine avatar of Yahweh. There is no reason to believe that Isaiah was speaking of a future messiah, to be born some several hundred years later.

...and Ahaz lost that war with Syria. So much for "God with us".

[Brian37]

I just discovered this great miracle as I re-read scripture!

Point #1:
Elizebeth, wife of Zachariah, conceived John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Point #2:
It was during Elizabeth's 6th month of pregnancy with JtB that the annunciation happened.

Luke 1:24-27 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Point #3
Mary was immediately pregnant with baby Jesus after the annunciation, still during Liz's 6th month.

Luke 1:41-42 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

So Liz knew by virtue of The Holy Spirit that Mary was pregnant with the Lord. JtB was excited too. Or maybe he just kicked.

Point #4
Mary was still pregnant with baby Jesus during the reign of Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, who's administration began in 6 AD.

Luke 2:2-7 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) ...To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. ...And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

OK, so, let's review. Mary conceived prior to 4 BC and gave birth after 6 AD.

It's a 10 year pregnancy!

It's a miracle! ...or something.

The babble has scientific absurdities? I'm Wolf Blitzer in the situation room, our top story tonight DUH!

[Drich]

Well, they could simply have told the truth.

They did, she was a virgin, they checked, life moved on.

There is no account that the community was aware of the fact that a virgin was carrying a child.

In order to accuractly make that statement, you have to account for all of the written records of that day. Something you can not do, because the complete written record simply does not exist anymore.

There was tremoundous effort and expense to care for and preserve the manuscripts, not that this revelation would not be worth of it. What I'm saying is this expense was somewhat offset by storing the records of the Jewish people in centralized locatations call scriptoriums, which were basically libraries for the priests. These scriptoriums were burned to the ground in and around 70AD when Rome came in and destroyed the temple. I read somewhere that we only have about 5% of what these scriptoriums held.

Again to say there was no record is at best persumptious.

It all seems secretive, to the degree that even Joseph required divine intervention before he knew the truth.

Because he knew he did not father that child.

Not only does the account not mention that she was checked for virginity, the only time anyone seems to be aware of her situation is through the action of holy spirit or angelic messengers.

so your abandoning your 'baby bump' theory now in favor of this?

Based on your explanation, we are to understand that a pregnant woman was checked and found to be a virgin, but no one seemed to consider this to be notable.

This happened 2000 years ago and all we have left is the law and what is know of the culture to make any determination as to how society would have reacted.
We know premaritial sex was more than frowned upon. It was a husband's right to call for the woman's death in certain situations. The fact that she was showing at the time of her marriage put her in a lot of hot water, and possiably him as well. At the time of their marriage there would have been questions by the priest. the only way the two of them would have escaped unscathed is if there were no sexual sin committed. Which means she would have had to tell them she was a virgin. Which is a blasphemous assertion deserving of death if not true. thus compounding their situation if she was indeed not a virgin.

Hence why Joseph decided to make the marriage official.

Mat 2:20 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.

If a literal angel told me my fiance' was carring the Son of God and I was to marry her and name the boy Jesus, then I would marry her and name the boy Jesus.

This implies that her situation was not known to anyone that god had not specifically notified via angels or dreams.

Ah, no. all anyone could discern by looking at her is that she was prego. The divine revelations given to people by the angels was to inform that Mary did nothing wrong.

Joseph would not have been concerned about bringing Mary public shame if it was understood that she was carrying the fetus of god himself.

Read the story again. Joseph's concern happened before he was told the orgins of Mary's child.

He knew that taking her into his home would lead people to believe that the child was his. Why there was this need for deception and secrecy, the text does not say, and I find it somewhat awkward.

He took her into his home because he pledged himself to do so before any of this happened. He did so because he knew neither he nor she did anything wrong. They were selected to bring the Son of God into this world and care for Him for a time.