Virgin Birth Based on Outdated Beliefs About Conception?

[Julius_Caesar]

The Angel says nothing other than Joseph should not be afraid to take Mary into his home (could be taken either way) and that the Child was concieved by the holy Spirit (does not mean Joseph was not already aware of this).

The Angel’s words make no sense if Joseph knows.

Would it have been unjust to divorce an unfaithful woman?

You’ve proved my point. Joseph divorcing Mary when he knows the truth is unjust.

 

[Useless]

Would it be unjust to divorce an unfaithful woman?

 

[LilyM]

The Angel says nothing other than Joseph should not be afraid to take Mary into his home (could be taken either way) and that the Child was concieved by the holy Spirit (does not mean Joseph was not already aware of this).

Would it have been unjust to divorce an unfaithful woman?

It certainly would have been unjust to divorce one you knew was blameless!

 

[Useless]

Indeed. So we know Joseph, being a “just” man, would not have divorced Mary because he knew she was blameless.

If he thought she was to be blamed he would have been perfectly justified in publicly divorcing her.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Indeed. So we know Joseph, being a “just” man, would not have divorced Mary because he knew she was blameless.

You assert this is precisely why he wanted to do this.

If he thought she was to be blamed he would have been perfectly justified in publicly divorcing her

Which would’ve resulted in her death.

 

[Gorgias]

Just brought it into the discussion to show that not every theologian or Church father believed that Joseph assumed that the Virgin was unfaithful.

The way I’ve heard it discussed isn’t in terms of a crass assertion of “unfaithfulness”, but just a simple declaration that “Joseph knew how babies are made.”

Useless:

Joseph clearly meant to create some plausible excuse to live apart from her, considering himself unworthy to live with her and the Child.

Then why does the Gospel account show the angel as explaining the reason for Joseph to take Mary into his home as “for the child is conceived of the Holy Spirit”? By your reasoning, shouldn’t it have been something that reassured Joseph’s actual concern? Doesn’t the reassurance “he was conceived of the Holy Spirit” undermine the “humility” argument and support the “how did this happen?” argument…?

Useless:

The angel was reassuring Joseph that he had been chosen by God to be the foster father of the child.

No… the text says that the angel reassured Joseph of the divine conception.

Useless:

You are reading something in there that is not there. Joseph would not have simply abandoned Mary. He would have supported her financially from afar, while maintaining a plausible excuse (like necessary work) to avoid living under the same roof as her because he did not think himself worthy residing with her.

Wow. And that’s not reading a lot into the narrative that isn’t at all there?

Useless:

The Angel says nothing other than Joseph should not be afraid to take Mary into his home (could be taken either way) and that the Child was concieved by the holy Spirit (does not mean Joseph was not already aware of this).

You’re missing the conjunction: “for”. “Do not be afraid, for it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived.”

That’s the connection that you’re avoiding here.

One might expect that Mary told him “it’s the Holy Spirit! Really!”. And, being a “just man”, and not having any evidence to support or deny her claim, he decided that following the Mosaic Law and divorcing her – but quietly, in order to preserve her life – was the just thing to do. Am I making inferences here? Of course. Yet, they are less far-fetched than “he planned to take care of her from afar.”

Useless:

Would it be unjust to divorce an unfaithful woman?

When you have no direct proof of her infidelity, other than her being pregnant? And, in the face of her protestations that it was a miraculous conception? I think it would be just, from his perspective, knowing only that she was pregnant.

Useless:

Indeed. So we know Joseph, being a “just” man, would not have divorced Mary because he knew she was blameless.

But the Scripture account says that he was intent on divorcing her! So… “just” or “unjust”? Or, more to the case, how could we assent to him being labeled ‘just’ in this context? It would seem that the only way would be if he wasn’t convinced… until the angel affirmed it for him.

 

[Useless]

He was going to separate with her, not completely abandon her.

I asked if divorcing an unfaithful woman would be unjust because otherwise the passage makes no sense to me. If divorce were unjust regardless of infidelity, then Joseph would be unjust for seperating from her and the passage saying he would separate with her because he was just would be saying “he would do this unjust thing because he was just”…

However, if divorcing an unfaithful woman was just, then it makes no sense that he would not divorce her publicly “because he was just” because that would be saying “he would not do this just thing because he was a just man”

 

[Useless]

No… the text says that the angel reassured Joseph of the divine conception.

this is why we should not simply cherry pick the verse without taking context into account. Immediately after the angel tells Joseph to take the mother and child into his home.

Would it have been unjust for a man to divorce an unfaithful woman?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He was going to separate with her, not completely abandon her.

You keep saying this but the text don’t mention it.

I asked if divorcing an unfaithful woman would be unjust because otherwise the passage makes no sense to me.

And I asked whether it would be just to put a woman who you knew was innocent away.

However, if divorcing an unfaithful woman was just, then it makes no sense that he would not divorce her publicly “because he was just

You realize what the Law prescribed for woman in Mary’s situation. Stoning. Especially since the other party was unavailable.

 

[Gorgias]

He was going to separate with her, not completely abandon her.

No… the account says “divorce.”

If divorce were unjust regardless of infidelity

According to Mosaic law, divorce wasn’t unjust; and infidelity was a just reason.

However, if divorcing an unfaithful woman was just, then it makes no sense that he would not divorce her publicly “because he was just” because that would be saying “he would not do this just thing because he was a just man”

He had no proof, and Mary ostensibly told him about the Annunciation event. That would seem to justify the “quiet divorce.”

this is why we should not simply cherry pick the verse without taking context into account.

Umm… that’s literally what I’m doing.

Would it have been unjust for a man to divorce an unfaithful woman?

Without the proof that the Mosaic law requires? Think about it…

You realize what the Law prescribed for woman in Mary’s situation. Stoning. Especially since the other party was unavailable.

You need witnesses to the adultery, though, no? And Joseph didn’t have them.

 

[Useless]

You realize what the Law prescribed for woman in Mary’s situation. Stoning. Especially since the other party was unavailable.

And was it not in this very thread that someone suggested putting her aside quietly would not save her from this fate?

So he shames a virtuous honourable.woman who he trusts utterly by sending her away and refusing to marry her? Not likely.

So we have a conundrum. It would be unjust to publicly divorce a woman who was not unfaithful, yet even “secretly” divorcing her would result in her public shame anyway. The only solution would be to provide for her but not live with her.

If divorcing an unfaithful woman is unjust on account of the severity of the punishment then you suggest that Joseph, because of his justness, was going to do something unjust.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He had no proof, and Mary ostensibly told him about the Annunciation event. That would seem to justify the “quiet divorce.”

The text doesn’t say that.

And was it not in this very thread that someone suggested putting her aside quietly would not save her from this fate?

And where was this said?

divorcing an unfaithful woman is unjust on account of the severity of the punishment

No. Divorcing with no proof of adultery only a hunch.

 

[Gorgias]

The text doesn’t say that.

It doesn’t. But, Mary returns from visiting Elizabeth in the hill country. She stays with Elizabeth, who was in her “sixth month”, until she gives birth to John. By the time that she arrives back home, Mary is ostensibly four months pregnant or so. She would have been “showing” at that point. Are we really suggesting that she and Joseph hadn’t had a discussion about it? That he takes one look and decides “I’m out; I’m divorcing her”? That would even more strongly suggest that the “humility argument” doesn’t hold water.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Are we really suggesting that she and Joseph hadn’t had a discussion about it?

Yes.

Do you really expect the handmaid of the Lord to toot her own horn?

Joseph in my scenario knowns nothing, so it really makes sense for him to divorce Mary. He has no proof whatsoever.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you really expect the handmaid of the Lord to toot her own horn?

“This child has been conceived of the Spirit of God” isn’t “tooting one’s own horn”. It’s witnessing to the action of God.

It seems unrealistic to presume that Joseph didn’t see Mary upon her return and not ask anything.

Joseph in my scenario knowns nothing, so it really makes sense for him to divorce Mary. He has no proof whatsoever.

“Joseph has no proof” =/= “Joseph knows nothing”.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

It seems unrealistic to presume that Joseph didn’t see Mary upon her return and not ask anything

It seems uncharacteristic for someone as humble as Mary to tout her honor. And considering Joseph’s righteousness, he’d probably be appalled at “blasphemy.”

Joseph has no proof” =/= “Joseph knows nothing”

No. Not necessarily equal.

 

[Gorgias]

It seems uncharacteristic for someone as humble as Mary to tout her honor.

Sure about that? After all, we see her saying, “he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

That’s touting God’s honor, in direct reference to her pregnancy. If she’d say that to Elizabeth, why would you suggest that she would not do so to Joseph?

 

[Useless]

No. Divorcing with no proof of adultery only a hunch

So Joseph was unaware that pregnancy was the result of sex? Especially since you say that he would have considered miraculous conception to be “blasphemy” then you must admit that Joseph had all the proof he needed to dovorce her publicly.

 

[Useless]

So Joseph knows that the Child might be the promised Messiah and he “because he is a just man” is going to allow the mother to be publicly shamed and stoned?

Or are we suggesting that no one would notice that Joseph is not living with her or supporting her and she is pregnant and would tie those two things together?

We are left with

“Because Joseph was a just man he would not accuse her himself. He would just allow others to accuse her for him.”

 

[Gorgias]

So Joseph knows that the Child might be the promised Messiah and he “because he is a just man” is going to allow the mother to be publicly shamed and stoned?

No. Joseph knows that his betrothed is pregnant and he’s not the father. He doesn’t know what happened. But, he doesn’t want her stoned, so he comes up with the “quiet divorce” notion. Remember, he had the right to divorce her. If she had a guy on the side, that would have given that guy the opportunity to do the right thing and marry her, and thus, save his child the disgrace of being labeled a ‘mamzer’. If that would have happened, then Mary would be honorably married and she and the child cared for.

I’m not saying that this is what the narrative explicitly says; I’m just pointing out the norms of the day.

Or are we suggesting that no one would notice that Joseph is not living with her or supporting her and she is pregnant and would tie those two things together?

If she’s unmarried and pregnant, there’s still the opportunity for her to name her paramour and thus compel him to marry her.

We are left with

“Because Joseph was a just man he would not accuse her himself. He would just allow others to accuse her for him.”

Nope. That’s not at all what you’re left with.

So Joseph was unaware that pregnancy was the result of sex?

No. He just wasn’t in possession of any proof of the infidelity, aside from the pregnancy. So, he wouldn’t have been able to prove it if he were to accuse her of infidelity.