The most awkward conversation ever

[Yonadav]

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.

---

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,

No, it's not a liberal view. It's a compliance with the law view. You are thinking like a goy. 'Liberal' is an individual thinking that they can interpret the law however they please. 'Liberal' is believing that you can obey one commandment by breaking several others. Strict compliance with the law isn't about going around killing people just because you're certain that they violated the law.

[Drich]

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.

when was this gospel of thomas written/found? oh that's right 1945 AD matter of fact a whole library of gnostic gospels where found then. most of which date back to 500 years after christ. while the thomas gospel is said to date to 1300's.. doesn't mean it is not older, it's just the 1300s copy is the oldest intact version.

---

No, it's not a liberal view. It's a compliance with the law view. You are thinking like a goy. 'Liberal' is an individual thinking that they can interpret the law however they please. 'Liberal' is believing that you can obey one commandment by breaking several others. Strict compliance with the law isn't about going around killing people just because you're certain that they violated the law.

oy, again with the name calling. i ask for proof he gives me this.. This is proof where you studied? calling others names till they concede your point?!?!

[Yonadav]

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.

when was this gospel of thomas written/found? oh that's right 1945 AD matter of fact a whole library of gnostic gospels where found then. most of which date back to 500 years after christ. while the thomas gospel is said to date to 1300's.. doesn't mean it is not older, it's just the 1300s copy is the oldest intact version.

---

No, it's not a liberal view. It's a compliance with the law view. You are thinking like a goy. 'Liberal' is an individual thinking that they can interpret the law however they please. 'Liberal' is believing that you can obey one commandment by breaking several others. Strict compliance with the law isn't about going around killing people just because you're certain that they violated the law.

oy, again with the name calling. i ask for proof he gives me this.. This is proof where you studied? calling others names till they concede your point?!?!

So you think that you can obey commandment by breaking others?

Joseph: I am not the father of this child.
Sanhedrin: Well, if you dispute the paternity of the child, the only thing that you can do is demand that she drink the bitter waters.
Joseph: No, I don't want to do the bitter waters thing. Just take her out and stone her, simply because I deny that I'm the father.
Sanhedrin: Uh, you're not too bright, are you?

[Angrboda]

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?

Do you have a theory as to how that would occur, namely how the fetus would receive the necessary pair of chromosomes, whether the chromosal make-up would be abnormal, and how that would happen?

Also, just for my information, were Joseph and Mary wed at the time she became pregnant? My recollection is that they weren't.

---

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

I guess we now know what standard to apply if you tell us you bear witness to Christ and God.

[Drich]

when was this gospel of thomas written/found? oh that's right 1945 AD matter of fact a whole library of gnostic gospels where found then. most of which date back to 500 years after christ. while the thomas gospel is said to date to 1300's.. doesn't mean it is not older, it's just the 1300s copy is the oldest intact version.

---

oy, again with the name calling. i ask for proof he gives me this.. This is proof where you studied? calling others names till they concede your point?!?!

So you think that you can obey commandment by breaking others?

Joseph: I am not the father of this child.
Sanhedrin: Well, if you dispute the paternity of the child, the only thing that you can do is demand that she drink the bitter waters.
Joseph: No, I don't want to do the bitter waters thing. Just take her out and stone her, simply because I deny that I'm the father.
Sanhedrin: Uh, you're not too bright, are you?

so to you this is a citation? 
you are not even comparing apples to apples here. the bitter water thing was a way to tell if the woman was unfaithful if she would not admit to an adultery. Not the case with marry. Marry Demanded she was still a virgin which again could be verified. a married woman who has had sex would not have a hymen intact. Marry did because she 'knew no man'. Yet was pregnant.

So with that in mind I'm asking you to cite a passage or example of a pregnant woman who was married a virgin, husband never slept with her but a few months later turns up pregnant, and she admits to not being a virgin anymore, but the Sanhedrin say: hmm ok you just admitted to committing a 1 or 3 automatic death penalty sins, meaning in our law we have but 3 sins that demand death once verified, and you are admitting to one, so we will ignore the law and God and let you go. Why find this example where the wife admits to adultry? because in the case of marry a broken hymen would be an admission of guilt if her husband married a virgin/hymen intact, and yet his wife was pregnant with a broken hymen indicating sex. The crime is a woman having sex while married to another person.. her broken hymen is such a proof.

Note when the woman caught in the act of adultery that they brought before Jesus and cited the law that said the law of Moses demand we stone her what say you? (knowing if Jesus authorized her stoning death he would violate roman law, but if he said let her go Jesus would violate the law of God.) my question to you is 30 years after marry if the pharisees saw and judged adultery here as a death penalty case, what would make you think marry would get off Scott free, IF her broken hymen would have indicated sex?

What you fail to understand is in the case of Mary/mother of Jesus  The fact that her virginity can be verified is what saved her. Other wise in the situation I demanded you find precedent for in the law, would have taken Joseph's word over hers and believed he married a virgin, but here she is pregnant.

But wait.. She claims to be a virgin which points back to a prophesy so now if she is lying she is not only an adulter she is also a blasphemer which is 2 of the 3 automatic stonning sins... But you think the Sanhedrin would just lets all of this go and not demand an accounting? especially when it would take 2 mins to settle all claims?

the fact that she was verified a virgin after being pregnant saved her life, and any discrete to Joseph.

If you say otherwise do as I did cite example and law and show your proof. stop creating little fan fiction dialog and calling me names to discredit what you can not refute. Again know you pov while I understand it is one of two.. I did not just make my pov up. it was taught as was your which is why I am prepared with example to refute the water down version of the law/the modern interpretation verse the 1st century reading of the law would be.

---

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?

Do you have a theory as to how that would occur, namely how the fetus would receive the necessary pair of chromosomes, whether the chromosal make-up would be abnormal, and how that would happen?

Also, just for my information, were Joseph and Mary wed at the time she became pregnant?  My recollection is that they weren't.

---

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

I guess we now know what standard to apply if you tell us you bear witness to Christ and God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another fine example of the romanization of jesus.  Let's lay aside whether or not you have jewish law right on that one..because even if you don't the author of the tale certainly thought that was the law.  Yet again jesus sides with the romans and the jews are painted as feckless hypocrites.

[Drich]

Do you have a theory as to how that would occur, namely how the fetus would receive the necessary pair of chromosomes, whether the chromosal make-up would be abnormal, and how that would happen?

according to the article If I remember correctly many cases where dismissed because of 'limited sexual contact'/partial penetration, or exposure to semen. and It hink I remember seeing something about a partially developed 'twin brother' in another case.. I honestly do not know anything beyond what the article reads.

Also, just for my information, were Joseph and Mary wed at the time she became pregnant?  My recollection is that they weren't.

they where betrothed. meaning she was too young to be married, (hence confirmation of her virginity) meaning too young for legal sex under the law of moses which all the more offensive if she where to turn up pregnant, as it would make Joseph like a 1st century version of a Jewish pedophile. All the more to deny having sex/not his child which would go back to her claiming to be a virgin which again would in turn demand someone check.

---

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

I guess we now know what standard to apply if you tell us you bear witness to Christ and God.
[/quote]

I mean to say if she was not a virgin, the fact that a man's word trumps a woman's claim in that culture coupled with Jospeh's claim not having father a child with her,) times the fact she had a child would mean she had sex outside of her husband's line.

[Mister Agenda]

Drich complaining about name-calling. I think my irony meter just when nuclear.

[Drich]

Another fine example of the romanization of jesus.  Let's lay aside whether or not you have jewish law right on that one..because even if you don't the author of the tale certainly thought that was the law.  Yet again jesus sides with the romans and the jews are painted as feckless hypocrites.

how does Jesus side with the Romans, he is not even been born to this point yet?

[The Grand Nudger]

Note when the woman caught in the act of adultery that they brought before Jesus and cited the law that said the law of Moses demand we stone her what say you? (knowing if Jesus authorized her stoning death he would violate roman law, but if he said let her go Jesus would violate the law of God.) 

..............?