Religion Was the "Virgin" Mary unfaithful ?

[strongvoicesforward]

Good for you strongvoicesforward san. It does look as though you can be straight forward and stick to the facts of a matter when you want to !

What is that? Some kind of backhanded complement?

As for you answers above:
Good for you, Mars Man san. It does look as though you can be straightforward and not dithering like a noodle on matters when you want to!

AND, now it is my turn to ask only two questions !!!!
Did you open this thread with the intent to discuss the validity of the account found in the New Testament?

Partially. But, validity in an invalid text because it is not what it claims to be makes that to be the lesser reason, if one at all. Mainly, I opened it to muse on the motives for what might cause one to lie and how consequences could have caused things to happen amongst the characters -- hence the dialogues to recreate or drive home how things could have unfolded and the reasons for that unfolding how it did.

Also, Mars Man, you seem to not be aware that the first post of this thread was innitially posted/brought up in the "WOG" thread. I innitially thought it would pass after a few posts and just become part of the history of that thread. Maciamo however, felt it deserved to have a separate space of its own. After thinking about it I agree with him since it is a rather interesting topic to think about Mary`s predicament and the rammifications of her claiming to be impregnated and chosen by God as a virgin.

* your second question said "question" singular so I guess it was refering to the above in the future tense. I have answered it, but am a little confused by what you meant by "adhering to the pertinant data as an possible format."

 

[Tsuyoiko]

By not multiplying the entities beyond necessity you are left with the most probable choices.

I would strongly advise you to invoke philosophical arguments only when you have a good understanding of them. Since you seem very confused about the implications of Ockham's razor (which, I say again, tells us nothing about probability), I would advise you not to use it. Maybe this link will help.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

#8 Yes (But be careful here, this is a trickey one !!)
#9 This is a meaningless question !! It will have already been answerd by those which preceded it !!!

See? "Yes/no" questions do need qualifying, don`t they? Now that I have allowed you to graciously employ qualifications of answers, please extend me the same courtesy -- even the right to protest against a question like you did with #9.

That is why I didn`t answer your "loaded" question. I felt it was unfair. You do so becuase you tag the title "meaningless" to the one you don`t want to answer. But, why should your reason to not answer be any more valid than mine? Admittedly, #9 was a loaded question. I was wondering how you would react to it. You seem to have shown the same aversion to it as I did yours. Let`s be fair in what we allow one another.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Consider this: what is (was) the most likely reaction if a girl claims she is a virgin and was made pregnant by god? How likely is it that such a claim would help the girl 'save face'?

Consider this also: although unmarried, Mary and Joseph were betrothed. Even 2000 years ago, was it such a scandal for a betrothed girl to get pregnant? I suspect it happened all the time, just as it does today and has throughout history.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The most likely non-christian event is that joseph and mary had their marital relations, jesus was born, without all that magical nativity lark, he grew up, decided he wanted to found a cultand be the messiah and stuff, and made up his own history, and the rest we already know.
Nobody is going to believe some baby born to some random normal woman, in a boring normal fashion is going to believe herson is the messiah, it would require him to grow up and make up his own life-history first

That explanation seems as good a candidate as the 'translational error' argument. Thanks Nuri.

Ive heard of the unlikely event of women climaxing just by being looked at by a man.

I'm sure you're speaking from personal experience there Nuri

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I would strongly advise you to invoke philosophical arguments only when you have a good understanding of them. Since you seem very confused about the implications of Ockham's razor (which, I say again, tells us nothing about probability), I would advise you not to use it. Maybe this link will help.

Tsuyoiko, look at what I just took off the link you gave me concerning Occam`s Razor:

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler, and The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

Now, what is that tellling you about the 4 or 5 choices you proffered before as to why she could have gotten pregnant and still be a virgin and not lieing?

All those things (except possibly for the translation problem) are not the simpler reason/theories for Mary being pregnant. The simpler reason which it says is "usually the correct answer" is that Mary had premarital sex with someone, either Joseph or another. That is the simplest and most probable explanation. Go back and read the link to wikpedia you just gave me and look at the quote I pulled off yourself.

Why do you think those 4 reasons are simpler and more easily/simpler of the theories offered?

btw, you still haven`t answered my questions I posed to you about those. Are you going to answer those questions or not?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Consider this: what is (was) the most likely reaction if a girl claims she is a virgin and was made pregnant by god? How likely is it that such a claim would help the girl 'save face'?

I don`t know. Do you have any data showing that a number of unmarried girls of that time tried it?

As for Mary, some how it worked for her. She was able to pull it off. Not everyone is successful in risky undertakings.

Consider this also: although unmarried, Mary and Joseph were betrothed. Even 2000 years ago, was it such a scandal for a betrothed girl to get pregnant? I suspect it happened all the time, just as it does today and has throughout history.

I am pretty sure that a betrothed girl getting pregnant resulted in some very terrible situation -- if not deadly. I think somewhere in "The Law" (could be wrong where it is) it puts forth punishment for a girl becoming pregnant before beng married -- not betrothed.

Yes, I agree it happened often as it does today. But, I would bet it didn`t happen as often as today. Also, the rammifications were much more severe and therefore there existed a great impetus for concealing. Much different from today. Girls in my high school walked around just about bursting all the way to the 8th month.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler, and The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

Exactly - nothing there about probability. I notice that you chose the more 'lay' interpretations. I prefer the more direct and accurate translation of the Latin - i.e. "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity". I'm glad you found the link useful though.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Why do you think those 4 reasons are simpler and more easily/simpler of the theories offered?

As I'm pretty sure I've already said, Mars Man's suggestion is the most simple, but Nuri's is a good candidate too. Neither of these require any speculation beyond the facts we have in front of us.

 

[Mars Man]

Maciamo however, felt it deserved to have a separate space of its own. After thinking about it I agree with him...

I see. Maciamo had approched you, and you agreed to his idea of starting a new thread with it.

I challenge you to go back and look at your questions, and tell us the meaning in asking one who does not believe in the Bible god, does not believe in the Bible's being the word of god, and does not believe in any possibly historic person's being concieved by supernatural event, if they believe in that same unbelieved-in god's having caused unbelieved-in supernatural events as recorded in that unbelieved-in as being the word of god collection of writings!!

And while you are at it, I would suggest that you reply as to just what meaning there would have been in asking one if they believed in the god they believed in causing the supernatural events that they believe in as recorded in the writings they believe in as being the word of god that they believe in?!!

Before talking about fairness, we need to talk about being realistic !!!!!!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Exactly - nothing there about probability. I notice that you chose the more 'lay' interpretations. I prefer the more direct and accurate translation of the Latin - i.e. "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity". I'm glad you found the link useful though.

Tsuyoiko, I took it from the link you provided. The two are complimentary. If you think one trumps or cancels out the other, then your argument is with Wikipedia -- not me.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I see. Maciamo had approched you, and you agreed to his idea of starting a new thread with it.

There was no "approaching." He just did it. But, like I said, I do agree with the thread creation but there was no collaboration on my part in creating it as a thread.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As I'm pretty sure I've already said, Mars Man's suggestion is the most simple, but Nuri's is a good candidate too. Neither of these require any speculation beyond the facts we have in front of us.

Like I said, I am willing to accept that she was just a "young woman." It is a simple explanation. However, -- you still haven`t addressed Mary telling us herself that she had never "known a man."

But, I am glad we did decide to drop those other 4 from the realm of reasonable possibility.

I think Nuri`s was another suggestion of premarital sex or some kind of sexual explanation, wasn`t it? I have to go back and look, or if you want you can correct me in a following post to save me the time. IF I don`t see your correction, I`ll assume that I was right about his post.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I am pretty sure that a betrothed girl getting pregnant resulted in some very terrible situation -- if not deadly.

Although it was not the norm, there are indications that some betrothed couples did engage in sexual relations at that time, with no consequences - although scholars do disagree on the matter. Remember that a Jewish betrothal was/is a more formal arrangement than what we might understand by betrothal or engagement, which is just a pretty pointless exchanging of rings these days.

McHugh has shown from Mishnahic sources (Kiddushin ?gBetrothals,?h and Ketuboth ?gMarriage Deeds?h) that sexual relations between the betrothed were allowed in Judaism

(from http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/marys-perpetual-virginity-in-light-of_15.html

 

[strongvoicesforward]

@Mars Man:

I was only trying to get clear in what you believed in regards to the Bible and Christianity -- hence the reason for those questions to you. Had your position been clear, I never would have asked you.

Keep in mind, you asked the loaded question first. Fairness took a turn at that point.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think Nuri`s was another suggestion of premarital sex or some kind of sexual explanation, wasn`t it? I have to go back and look, or if you want you can correct me in a following post to save me the time. IF I don`t see your correction, I`ll assume that I was right about his post.

Go back and read his post #38.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Tsuyoiko, I took it from the link you provided. The two are complimentary. If you think one trumps or cancels out the other, then your argument is with Wikipedia -- not me.

One is an accurate translation, the other is IMO a 'dumbed-down' version for those who can't understand the accurate translation.

I think that's enough on the matter, as it is offtopic.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Although it was not the norm, there are indications that some betrothed couples did engage in sexual relations at that time, with no consequences - although scholars do disagree on the matter. Remember that a Jewish betrothal was/is a more formal arrangement than what we might understand by betrothal or engagement, which is just a pretty pointless exchanging of rings these days.(from http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/marys-perpetual-virginity-in-light-of_15.html

Again, that is all fine. If her pregnancy is one of sexual relations with Joseph and there were no fear of stoning, then that is another dialogue that could be created as another choice to choose from. That being number 3 is no miracle and I am all for demystifying the event of Jesus' conception. But, still Mary tells us she has "Known no man." Is she lieing? Being deceptive? Why would she say that if haveing sexual relations in the contracts of betrothel like you mention above did not seem to be so bad?

But, the explanation you gave above about "no consequences" makes me wonder about the exact time period of those betrothel exchanges. Did they hide the pregnancy and is that the reason there were no consequences. Was the sexual activity able to be admitted to without some consequences. Those seem to be extra-biblical or extra Jewish sources and not from the Bible. We are discussing what the Law says and I am pretty sure the Bible Law is harsh on the matter.

You also use the word "indications" as if it were anomalies and far from the norm. And remember, the scholars do disagree. But, what does the bible say about premarital sex?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Go back and read his post #38.

Yes, his position is basically the same as mine. He just worded it differently. I am just wondering why you are so loathed to agree with me that you had to refer to another`s explanation with sex because of the little differences rather than just saying, "yes, SVF, premarital sex like you said is probably what occurred," rather than posting those 4 improbable reasons.

You know, you don`t have to let being stuck on my persona keep you from agreeing with me from time to time.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Yes, his position is basically the same as mine.

You have a very peculiar conception of identity, IMO :?