Virgin Birth Based on Outdated Beliefs About Conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
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.”
Click to expand...
After Elizabeth was prompted by the Holy Spirit to honor her.

There’s a vital reason for that.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
It has been demonstrated that the doctrine of virgin birth is likely based off of ancient views of conception.
Click to expand...
No, what’s been demonstrated is that some allegedly educated person thinks so based on a half-baked non sequitur.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
He was unaware of the guilty party.
Click to expand...
Well, he would be absolutely aware of “the guilty party.” He knows that he hasn’t had sex with her, he knows that she is pergnant… it wouldn’t seem to be very difficult for him to figure out “what happened”
Gorgias said:
If that would have happened, then Mary would be honorably married and she and the child cared for.
Click to expand...
But you just said she told him it was the Holy Spirit, so he would know that would be the story she was running with.
 
Last edited:
Useless said:
Well, he would be absolutely aware of “the guilty party.”
Click to expand...
He presumes the existence of a ‘guilty party’, but doesn’t know who he is. Therefore, he cannot accuse him (or Mary) of a crime he cannot prove as such.
Useless said:
But you just said she told him it was the Holy Spirit, so he would know that would be the story she was running with.
Click to expand...
Right, but aside from that story? No proof. (And, there would be no proof admissible under Mosaic law to allow her story to be admitted into evidence, either.)
 
Last edited:
Also how would privately divorcing her solve this problem?

Scenario A: Joseph divorces her privately. Everyone else finds out she is pregnant. They ask Joseph why he has divorced his pregnant wife. He says “the child is not mine” so they ask Mary, “who is the child’s father?” And she says “its Joe Bob’s child” so they say “go marry Joe Bob.”

Scenario B: Joseph publicly divorces her because “the child is not mine.” They don’t ask her who the father is, they just immediately stone her.

Why the difference in the reaction? Why do they stone her if Joseph publicly divorces her, but they don’t stone her when they find out Joseph has dovorced her?
 
Last edited:
Useless said:
They ask Joseph why he has divorced his pregnant wife. He says “the child is not mine”
Click to expand...
No, this doesn’t follow. He doesn’t have to say this. Remember, the one legal theory is that a man can divorce his wife “for any reason whatsoever.” Please recall that this question is the one that’s put to Jesus, later on.

So, Joseph could have simply replied, “she was not pleasing to me as a wife, so I divorced her.” No implication of infidelity; no cause for stoning on account of ‘fornication’.
Useless said:
Why the difference in the reaction?
Click to expand...
In “scenario A”, Mary ends up married to ‘Joe Bob’, and they raise their child together.

That’s a pretty big difference from “Mary gets stoned to death and her baby dead along with her”, wouldn’t you say?
 
I guess that is theoretically possible. I’m not sure how any of this connects to Joseph being a “just” man or not.

Also, we are now suggesting Joseph would lie, which might be “merciful” but would certainly not be “just”.

I don’t think that is the meaning of the Scripture, but since it is a sin to claim one interpretation HAS to be true when the Church does not make that claim, I will simply say that I think it is more likely thag Joseph always knew Mary was faithful.
 
Last edited:
Useless said:
40.png
Julius_Caesar:
You realize what the Law prescribed for woman in Mary’s situation. Stoning. Especially since the other party was unavailable.
Click to expand...
And was it not in this very thread that someone suggested putting her aside quietly would not save her from this fate?
LilyM said:
So he shames a virtuous honourable.woman who he trusts utterly by sending her away and refusing to marry her? Not likely.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Well, as I see it, if he put her away quietly people could only guess at a reason (the only reasonable assumptions all involving her being not virtuous in some way). Rather than a public divorce involving a specific accusation by Joseph.

The very idea of her being put aside in this way in and of itself woukd be shameful. Few if any other men would want to marry a cast-off. More especially a cast-off unwed mother. Huge stigma.

Yes, he spared her the additional PUBLIC disgrace of PUBLICLY making accusations against her. But there still would have been raised eyebrows and disgrace.
 
Useless said:
Also, we are now suggesting Joseph would lie, which might be “merciful” but would certainly not be “just”
Click to expand...
And Joseph would claim the Child as his own after the Angel spoke to him. Would he be lying then?
 
Useless said:
Also, we are now suggesting Joseph would lie, which might be “merciful” but would certainly not be “just”.
Click to expand...
No, we’re suggesting that Joseph wouldn’t bring a case for adultery that he could not prove.
Useless said:
since it is a sin to claim one interpretation HAS to be true when the Church does not make that claim
Click to expand...
Hmm…?
LilyM said:
Rather than a public divorce involving a specific accusation by Joseph.
Click to expand...
Why do people keep saying “public divorce”? There’s no indication of that as an alternative in the text! I think that, given the context, the alternative would be “accusing Mary of adultery.” Since he could not prove it (and, IMHO, since it seems reasonable that he and Mary would have talked about it, and that she would have said “an angel came to me”), the ‘just’ thing to do would be to not press a case he couldn’t prove. Therefore… “divorce her quietly.”
LilyM said:
Few if any other men would want to marry a cast-off.
Click to expand...
The point would be that, as a divorced woman, she would be able to name her paramour and, under the Law, compel him to make an honest woman out of her.
LilyM said:
But there still would have been raised eyebrows and disgrace.
Click to expand...
She hadn’t yet entered her husband’s home. She came home from a visit to relatives 3-4 months pregnant. You don’t think that there was already “raised eyebrows and disgrace”?
Julius_Caesar said:
And Joseph would claim the Child as his own after the Angel spoke to him. Would he be lying then?
Click to expand...
No; he would be the father in a legal sense. No lie there.
 
Gorgias said:
Why do people keep saying “public divorce”? There’s no indication of that as an alternative in the text! I think that, given the context, the alternative would be “accusing Mary of adultery.” Since he could not prove it (and, IMHO, since it seems reasonable that he and Mary would have talked about it, and that she would have said “an angel came to me”),
Click to expand...
At which point he would have been appalled by blasphemy and the stones would’ve flown regardless.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
At which point he would have been appalled by blasphemy and the stones would’ve flown regardless.
Click to expand...
Again: “on the testimony of two or more witnesses”. He didn’t have that, either, if this was – as you wrote – “no one knew besides Joseph and Mary”. One didn’t merely have the right to proclaim “blasphemy!” on one’s own initiative and start lobbing stones…
 
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
Gorgias:
Why do people keep saying “public divorce”? There’s no indication of that as an alternative in the text! I think that, given the context, the alternative would be “accusing Mary of adultery.” Since he could not prove it (and, IMHO, since it seems reasonable that he and Mary would have talked about it, and that she would have said “an angel came to me”),
Click to expand...
At which point he would have been appalled by blasphemy and the stones would’ve flown regardless.
Click to expand...
Matthew 1
19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top