The most awkward conversation ever

[WinterHold]

When Mary -peace be upon her- got pregnant; it was the ultimate exposure for the sexism and inhumane extreme treatment of women in ancient times; especially the Jewish unfair laws against women.

Everybody started to accuse Mary when she came back with baby Jesus instead of leaving her alone. Nobody was concerned about the child; but everybody was concerned about Mary having adultery.

And just like the ancient Jews and ancient Romans, we have atheists to follow on the path of picturing Mary as a whore.
Did anybody assume that an angel truly came to her; and blew in her vagina?

Personally, I enjoy her story because it shows me the amount of similarity between ancient Romans & Jews with modern non-believers. Both factions are not so different if you think about it.

Peace be upon you; Mary.

[Yonadav]

If you want to believe that the creator of the universe impregnated a middle eastern virgin with his Jesus sperm, that's up to you. I definitely would not describe what you're saying as in any way sensible.
You are basically saying that having a quick look at her minge proved that God got her pregnant? It's laughable Drich.

did you know in 2013 there where almost 50 cases of claimed virgin births in the US? how do you think doctors would verify this condition? is it so hard to believe this same method was known by people who live 2000 years ago? what is so laughable about that?

---

What about Jesus' twin brother Thomas (James)? Was he also of God's seed? If he was did he also have superpowers like walking on water and cursing fig trees?

Jesus did not have a twin he had a 1/2 brother. son of Joseph and Marry as Jesus was son ofGod and marry

---

Turns out Drich is hopelessly naive on matters of sexuality. Who knew?

how so? I'm the one who suggested that a claim to virgin birth can be checked clinically by having an intact hymen.

---

You are completely wrong. It was not a stoning offense. Becoming pregnant is not a stoning offense. You're thinking like a goy. It is only a stoning offense when adulterers are caught in the act, and then both of them are stoned. They have to be caught in the act by two witnesses. If one of the witnesses is the woman's husband, then only the male adulterer is going to be stoned, ironically because the husband is disqualified as a witness against his wife.

oy-vey.. You would normally be correct in a marriage who has been consumated. but here's the thing with this one. According to:https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/adultery/
One thing made clear from this biblical ordeal of the suspected adulteress is that the Torah gives the male partner clear prerogatives by laying the burden of proving innocence on the woman. And, while both the wife and her adulterous lover were subject to capital punishment if guilty, no reverse ordeal was instituted: a wife suspecting her husband of infidelity had no recourse. The standards were not the same and men were allowed to be polygamous.
If Mary and Joey never had sex and she shows up to be pregos.. And joseph demands he has never had sex with his wife, then she is guilty of adultery which is one of the 3 cardinal death penalty laws old sport.
She would have to prove her innocence or that it was indeed his. Which again is why the bible said he wanted to quietly deal with this and move on before the angel of the lord appeared to him.

You can jump up and down and scream about how obviously a pregnancy is proof of illicit sexual relationships all that you want, but Jewish law just doesn't accept that.

kinda does. as two witnesses where not the only forms of verification. https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.5.11-31?lang=he-en shows a way to invoke the testimony of the lord. (having mary's belly distend) would be an indicator needed. Again especially if husband testifies he has never had sex with his wife.

An unmarried woman absolutely could become pregnant, deny having had sexual relations with anyone, and a Jewish court couldn't have done anything about it.

citation please

In Jewish law there is death at the hands of the court, and there is death from Heaven. When someone commits crimes that can't be punished at the hands of the court, then it is in the hands of Heaven. So when Jews noticed that an unmarried woman is pregnant and she denies having had illicit sexual relations with anyone, they just accepted it. She's either telling the truth or G-d is going to strike her down at some point in the future.

Adultery (sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband [the biblical prohibition does not include sex between a married man and an unmarried woman]) is the only sexual offense recorded in the Ten Commandments. It is again recorded in the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus 20. The Book of Genesis (20:9) calls adultery “the great sin” and the Talmud calls adultery ha’averah (the sin par excellence). According to rabbinic tradition, it [along with incest, in the category of gilui arayot] is considered one of the three sins (along with idolatry and murder) that people should avoid even at the pain of death. The gravity of adultery is evident by the fact that the Bible describes the offense as being punishable by the death penalty for both the man and the woman.

Your ideas about justice come much later:
Laws of adultery continued to be developed in talmudic times. The unfaithful wife was dealt with extensively in a talmudic tractate called Sotah (the faithless wife). Before the penalty of death could be administered, the rabbis stated in the Talmud, a number of strict requirements needed to be met, including such necessities as the crime having to have occurred before two valid witnesses and a warning that must be given to the couple concerning the punishment for the crime in very specific terms. The probability of carrying out the death penalty was, therefore, quite remote

There was only one thing that could be done about a married woman committing adultery in the absence of witnesses-- only if the husband couldn't set aside his suspicion. He could demand that she drink the bitter waters. After drinking the bitter waters she would either die horribly or suffer no ill effects at all in accordance with her guilt or innocence. If Joseph had demanded that Mary drink the bitter waters, then that absolutely would have proved her fidelity according to Jewish law. But even then, we would not have accepted the pregnancy as Divine, since we simply don't accept magic as being proof of anything. She would just be a pregnant virgin, and the pregnancy would be viewed as an unexplained mundane matter.

but it would proove she did not have sex with him which was considered adultery which again was a stonning offense. something they practice as witnessed by the the woman caught in adultery and brought before jesus (just prior to them stonning her)

Wow. Way to repeat what I told you without acknowledging the point. Unless two valid witnesses actually saw her committing adultery, then there is no stoning. Joseph could have demanded that Mary drink the bitter waters, in which case she would have either died after drinking if she was guilty, or suffered no ill effects if she were innocent.

I haven't read the NT, so I had to look up the story of your boy judging an adulterous woman. It was hilarious. Yet another NT story that clearly wasn't written by Jews.

[Fake Messiah]

Jesus did not have a twin he had a 1/2 brother. son of Joseph and Marry as Jesus was son ofGod and marry

Hello! Anyone home? 'Thomas' literally means 'twin' in Aramaic, as well as greek word Didymus, and as John tells us in 11:16 Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

[Yonadav]

It's hard to say for sure what something written in Greek would have been intended to convey in Aramaic or Hebrew. Tom is twin in both Hebrew and Aramaic. The 'as' at the end would be a feminine plural though. Girl twins. So, bit of a problem there.

[Drich]

did you know in 2013 there where almost 50 cases of claimed virgin births in the US? how do you think doctors would verify this condition? is it so hard to believe this same method was known by people who live 2000 years ago? what is so laughable about that?

---

Jesus did not have a twin he had a 1/2 brother. son of Joseph and Marry as Jesus was son ofGod and marry

---

how so? I'm the one who suggested that a claim to virgin birth can be checked clinically by having an intact hymen.

---

oy-vey.. You would normally be correct in a marriage who has been consumated. but here's the thing with this one. According to:https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/adultery/
One thing made clear from this biblical ordeal of the suspected adulteress is that the Torah gives the male partner clear prerogatives by laying the burden of proving innocence on the woman. And, while both the wife and her adulterous lover were subject to capital punishment if guilty, no reverse ordeal was instituted: a wife suspecting her husband of infidelity had no recourse. The standards were not the same and men were allowed to be polygamous.
If Mary and Joey never had sex and she shows up to be pregos.. And joseph demands he has never had sex with his wife, then she is guilty of adultery which is one of the 3 cardinal death penalty laws old sport.
She would have to prove her innocence or that it was indeed his. Which again is why the bible said he wanted to quietly deal with this and move on before the angel of the lord appeared to him.

kinda does. as two witnesses where not the only forms of verification. https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.5.11-31?lang=he-en shows a way to invoke the testimony of the lord. (having mary's belly distend) would be an indicator needed. Again especially if husband testifies he has never had sex with his wife.

citation please

Adultery (sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband [the biblical prohibition does not include sex between a married man and an unmarried woman]) is the only sexual offense recorded in the Ten Commandments. It is again recorded in the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus 20. The Book of Genesis (20:9) calls adultery “the great sin” and the Talmud calls adultery ha’averah (the sin par excellence). According to rabbinic tradition, it [along with incest, in the category of gilui arayot] is considered one of the three sins (along with idolatry and murder) that people should avoid even at the pain of death. The gravity of adultery is evident by the fact that the Bible describes the offense as being punishable by the death penalty for both the man and the woman.

Your ideas about justice come much later:
Laws of adultery continued to be developed in talmudic times. The unfaithful wife was dealt with extensively in a talmudic tractate called Sotah (the faithless wife). Before the penalty of death could be administered, the rabbis stated in the Talmud, a number of strict requirements needed to be met, including such necessities as the crime having to have occurred before two valid witnesses and a warning that must be given to the couple concerning the punishment for the crime in very specific terms. The probability of carrying out the death penalty was, therefore, quite remote
but it would proove she did not have sex with him which was considered adultery which again was a stonning offense. something they practice as witnessed by the the woman caught in adultery and brought before jesus (just prior to them stonning her)

Wow. Way to repeat what I told you without acknowledging the point. Unless two valid witnesses actually saw her committing adultery, then there is no stoning. Joseph could have demanded that Mary drink the bitter waters, in which case she would have either died after drinking if she was guilty, or suffered no ill effects if she were innocent.

I haven't read the NT, so I had to look up the story of your boy judging an adulterous woman. It was hilarious. Yet another NT story that clearly wasn't written by Jews.

just because you touched the based first, does not mean you represented them correctly. Yes you have knowledge, but you also know how to spin it to read as you want. or did you not know both liberal and conservative jews are born of the same law? All you demonstrated is a liberal view and I represented a more traditional 1st century view. I understand the spin most jews want to place on their history and respect the idea of not wanting to shite on their past, but at the same time it is what it is. and if you do not have the stomach to have a discussion like this, then know i am not forcing you to be apart of it. Meaning just as you find reason and belief to not want to think your ancestors would kill someone from basically something not even considered a crime. I find lots of reason (primarily because adultery is one of only 3 automatic death sentence sins, if and when it is verified.) and in this case the husband denying sex with his wife EVER, his word would be without question. pushing back the demand! to verify her virginity or face the consequence of stoning. 

That said if you are stuck on the rule of two..

Her husband would be a witness to her adultery and her new born would be the second.

[Yonadav]

Wow. Way to repeat what I told you without acknowledging the point. Unless two valid witnesses actually saw her committing adultery, then there is no stoning. Joseph could have demanded that Mary drink the bitter waters, in which case she would have either died after drinking if she was guilty, or suffered no ill effects if she were innocent.

I haven't read the NT, so I had to look up the story of your boy judging an adulterous woman. It was hilarious. Yet another NT story that clearly wasn't written by Jews.

just because you touched the based first, does not mean you represented them correctly. Yes you have knowledge, but you also know how to spin it to read as you want. or did you not know both liberal and conservative jews are born of the same law? All you demonstrated is a liberal view and I represented a more traditional 1st century view. I understand the spin most jews want to place on their history and respect the idea of not wanting to shite on their past, but at the same time it is what it is. and if you do not have the stomach to have a discussion like this, then know i am not forcing you to be apart of it. Meaning just as you find reason and belief to not want to think your ancestors would kill someone from basically something not even considered a crime. I find lots of reason (primarily because adultery is one of only 3 automatic death sentence sins, if and when it is verified.) and in this case the husband denying sex with his wife EVER, his word would be without question. pushing back the demand! to verify her virginity or face the consequence of stoning. 

That said if you are stuck on the rule of two..

Her husband would be a witness to her adultery and her new born would be the second.

You're getting desperate.

I didn't present a liberal view. I studied in a Orthodox kollel for several years, for several hours every day. My religious education is of a decidedly non-liberal nature. I have studied Sotah. You are reasoning like a goy. Again, being pregnant is not something that one can be stoned for. The law really is that at most, Joseph would have been able to demand that she drink the bitter waters.

I can't believe that we are arguing about this, because I am certain that you know that people can't be sentenced without witnesses to their crime-- it says that very clearly in the bible.

And the bible really clearly says that a man who suspects his wife of being unfaithful to him has no other recourse than to demand that she drink the bitter waters. You know that.

[Drich]

Jesus did not have a twin he had a 1/2 brother. son of Joseph and Marry as Jesus was son ofGod and marry

Hello! Anyone home? 'Thomas' literally means 'twin' in Aramaic, as well as greek word Didymus, and as John tells us in 11:16 Then Thomas (also known as Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

sport, give me the benefit of the doubt.. If i say something that seems way way too obvious then maybe look a little deeper or ask a question... Thomas being a brother of Christ was a gnostic teaching/pov. however in mark Jesus' sibblings where named  James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude), and Simon as brothers of Jesus (Greek: ἀδελφοὶ, translit. adelphoi, lit. 'brothers').[1] Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus. Some scholars[who?] argue that these brothers, especially James,[2] held positions of special honor in the .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

Which again would make all of jesus brother and sister's half brothers and sisters as their father was joseph.

---

just because you touched the based first, does not mean you represented them correctly. Yes you have knowledge, but you also know how to spin it to read as you want. or did you not know both liberal and conservative jews are born of the same law? All you demonstrated is a liberal view and I represented a more traditional 1st century view. I understand the spin most jews want to place on their history and respect the idea of not wanting to shite on their past, but at the same time it is what it is. and if you do not have the stomach to have a discussion like this, then know i am not forcing you to be apart of it. Meaning just as you find reason and belief to not want to think your ancestors would kill someone from basically something not even considered a crime. I find lots of reason (primarily because adultery is one of only 3 automatic death sentence sins, if and when it is verified.) and in this case the husband denying sex with his wife EVER, his word would be without question. pushing back the demand! to verify her virginity or face the consequence of stoning. 

That said if you are stuck on the rule of two..

Her husband would be a witness to her adultery and her new born would be the second.

You're getting desperate.

I didn't present a liberal view. I studied in a Orthodox kollel for several years, for several hours every day. My religious education is of a decidedly non-liberal nature. I have studied Sotah. You are reasoning like a goy. Again, being pregnant is not something that one can be stoned for. The law really is that at most, Joseph would have been able to demand that she drink the bitter waters.

I can't believe that we are arguing about this, because I am certain that you know that people can't be sentenced without witnesses to their crime-- it says that very clearly in the bible.

And the bible really clearly says that a man who suspects his wife of being unfaithful to him has no other recourse than to demand that she drink the bitter waters. You know that.

which is a liberal view. you can't tell me the 1st century orthodoxy would have just turned blind eye. to joseph claiming to never had sex with his wife and behold here she stands pregnant! That's the proof old sport!!! The BABY IS THE PROOF OF ADULTERY!!! Unless! she is in fact still a virgin! Which brings me back to "checking for her hymen" as this would have been a matter of life and death!

That said, you have displayed no evidence to support her pregnancy was not proof that joseph claim would be denied, you have quoted no sources all!! you done so far is attack the messenger/me. All the while I've quoted several sources which puts your interpretation on it's ends,and all you've seem to do is double down on trying to cast doubt on me.

I have asked you for a few citation of which you have failed to produce one to support your liberal views.. all you seem to be interested in is telling everyone how smart you think you are and i guess subsequently means you do not need to provide citation because your study habits..

I have study habits as well and yet seem to be able to provide a link or two when asked.. All I ask of you is that you put in at least 1/2 that efforts. provide one link that supports your extrapolation of the law and applies it with example in 1st century life.

if you are unwilling or unable to do this let this be evidence that there are more conservative views tot he torah than what you currently hold,

[The Grand Nudger]

American christers aren't very fond of the bitter waters bit, Yon.  Sounds too much like an abortion, lol.

As far as barbaric shit goes, forced abortion seems like it would solve the cuckolded husbands main concern..that the kid wasn't his.

[Fake Messiah]

sport, give me the benefit of the doubt.. If i say something that seems way way too obvious then maybe look a little deeper or ask a question... Thomas being a brother of Christ was a gnostic teaching/pov. however in mark Jesus' sibblings where named  James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude), and Simon as brothers of Jesus (Greek: ἀδελφοὶ, translit. adelphoi, lit. 'brothers').[1] Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus. Some scholars[who?] argue that these brothers, especially James,[2] held positions of special honor in the early Christian church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

Which again would make all of jesus brother and sister's half brothers and sisters as their father was joseph.

Yes, siblings were named in Mark but Thomas and Didymus were not names and there is also Gospel of Thomas that begins "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke. And Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down." In the original Greek version, it is written: "Judas, who is also called Thomas."
So the actual name is Didymus Judas Thomas - Judas, the twin.

[fredd bear]

sport, give me the benefit of the doubt.. If i say something that seems way way too obvious then maybe look a little deeper or ask a question... Thomas being a brother of Christ was a gnostic teaching/pov. however in mark Jesus' sibblings where named  James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude), and Simon as brothers of Jesus (Greek: ἀδελφοὶ, translit. adelphoi, lit. 'brothers').[1] Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus. Some scholars[who?] argue that these brothers, especially James,[2] held positions of special honor in the early Christian church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

Which again would make all of jesus brother and sister's half brothers and sisters as their father was joseph.

Yes, siblings were named in Mark but Thomas and Didymus were not names and there is also Gospel of Thomas that begins "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke. And Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down." In the original Greek version, it is written: "Judas, who is also called Thomas."
So the actual name is Didymus Judas Thomas - Judas, the twin.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))) 

Fascinating stuff.

I remember asking one of my De La Salle teachers about Jesus' brothers, because  it seemed quite clear to me when reading the gospels.I was disabused of that belief  by the usual sharp logic used by Christians in authority; "because I say so"  Never anything even close the the sophistication of Yonadav's explanation.

This line of questions has caused me to reflect: I read the bible and made my own interpretation. That was done in good faith. Yet I lacked I the language skills to read the original Greek. Forget about
ancient Hebrew for the Torah.

I have studied a few languages, but am no longer fluent in any. One thing I do remember is how hard it is to accurately translate from one language to another. 

The meanings of the gospels overall, as well as individual words remain hotly contested by the many different Christian sects. How then can anyone make a credible claim that THEIR interpretation is 'the Truth"?