The virgin story

[Willum]

Of course I have always found, in the spirit of Dennis Miller, that those people or cultures who put a high price on virginity are usually very immature.

However, allowing for that, an angel appears before Mary and gives her the good news, or opportunity, we presume she could have refused, to become the mother of Jesus.

But even scenarios on Earth, where teachers and students, trainers and cadets, officers and enlisted, are considered to have too much power over the subjects to ethically engage in procreation exercises.

How much less ethical for the lord of universe (assuming it really was the big G, and not a naughty tryst with Tiberius Panthera - like the Jewish of the time seemed to believe)... how much less ethical for the lord of the universe to subject himself "secretly" to some naive girl?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates? Or at least an announcement to save the girl from the scandal of and inexplicable pregnancy? Why would you exclude women who proved themselves to be good mothers already?

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

[Justin108]

God did not have sex with Mary. Let me rephrase what I said...
God had magic sex with Mary

Ok this clarifies you're not at all interested in a serious discussion.

Now, please go back and address the OP in this context.
Which really is what it's about.

What's left to address? If God did not have sex with Mary, then your accusation that God is unethical for "subjecting himself to a naive girl" and "seducing" her falls flat. The premise your OP rests on is moot, so what's left to address?

You know what Justin, I think you have dragged me down to your level and beaten me with experience.

And a nice final ad hominem to close things off with. That will be all I guess

[Willum]

[Replying to post 41 by Justin108]

You won. Win gracefully. There was no ad hominim, it didn't indicate other things.

Ok this clarifies you're not at all interested in a serious discussion.

The serious discussion was the OP topic, not semantics.
I have revised what I said, carry on with the OP... which, doesn't even have the word "sex" in it.
Here:

Of course I have always found, in the spirit of Dennis Miller, that those people or cultures who put a high price on virginity are usually very immature.

However, allowing for that, an angel appears before Mary and gives her the good news, or opportunity, we presume she could have refused, to become the mother of Jesus.

But even scenarios on Earth, where teachers and students, trainers and cadets, officers and enlisted, are considered to have too much power over the subjects to ethically engage in procreation exercises.

How much less ethical for the lord of universe (assuming it really was the big G, and not a naughty tryst with Tiberius Panthera - like the Jewish of the time seemed to believe)... how much less ethical for the lord of the universe to subject himself "secretly" to some naive girl?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates? Or at least an announcement to save the girl from the scandal of and inexplicable pregnancy? Why would you exclude women who proved themselves to be good mothers already?

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

Unless you don't have anything to say unless it is sensational... and actually can't contribute to the serous conversation.

[otseng]

You know what Justin, I think you have dragged me down to your level and beaten me with experience.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting about what level others are at.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 40 by polonius.advice]

Well, it means nubile woman or virgin, so translating it 'virgin,' demonstrates something about the character of the translator and the audience - especially one particular translation that has persisted.

I'd forgotten about "Emmanuel," and don't know what to make of it.

What do you make of God "dumping" an unexplained pregnancy on Mary? Obviously the lay people would have some believers, but the overwhelming majority would look for a special sign that demonstrated a supernatural being, and none of these survive to us.

Why would a Jew of 4AD believe a supernatural birth, and if not, what is left?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 40 by polonius.advice]

Well, it means nubile woman or virgin, so translating it 'virgin,' demonstrates something about the character of the translator and the audience - especially one particular translation that has persisted.

I'd forgotten about "Emmanuel," and don't know what to make of it.

What do you make of God "dumping" an unexplained pregnancy on Mary? Obviously the lay people would have some believers, but the overwhelming majority would look for a special sign that demonstrated a supernatural being, and none of these survive to us.

Why would a Jew of 4AD believe a supernatural birth, and if not, what is left?

RESPONSE: The Virgin birth stories appear in the nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke written about 80 AD not 4 AD. Matthew is the Evangelist not the Apostle Matthew.

Neither were witnesses to the story they told.

Virgin birth stories of gods and important people were popular at the time. (It was said that Philip the Great had a virgin birth as some say did Julius Caesar).

The Roman and Greek culture was practiced in Israel. Both occupied Israel for some time.

Interestingly, only the first few chapters of Matthew and Luke contain a virgin birth legend. It is not repeated in their later writings. Paul, Mark, and John never refer to it.

Several gospels and Josephus, the historian, refer to Jesus siblings, but believers in Mary's virgin birth try to argue that these other children were really cousins who evidently lived with and traveled with the Holy Family. James the Just, the brother of Jesus, was the first bishop of the Christian-Jewish community in Jerusalem.

So trying to explain the virgin birth of Mary is sort of a waste of time. But it makes a good story. At Christmas we have the stable birth story in Luke but there is none in Matthew who evidently has Jesus born in Joseph's family home. Matthew claims Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great who died in 4 B.C. Luke has Jesus born during the Roman census of Judea in 6 AD.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 45 by polonius.advice]

I knew Alexander believed he was the son of Set, but not that it was a legend of a virgin birth, thanks.

So trying to explain the virgin birth of Mary is sort of a waste of time.

Well the purpose of the OP is to demonstrate fallacy in the religion, so it isn't exactly a waste of time, more an argument ad absurdum.

It is an excellent observation that the legend of the virgin birth came from Greece/Roman influence, and amazingly, at a time of Roman conquest, a Jewish God suddenly adopts the concept.

It is rather another good explanation for the OP other than insecurity... thanks again.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 45 by polonius.advice]

I knew Alexander believed he was the son of Set, but not that it was a legend of a virgin birth, thanks.

So trying to explain the virgin birth of Mary is sort of a waste of time.

Well the purpose of the OP is to demonstrate fallacy in the religion, so it isn't exactly a waste of time, more an argument ad absurdum.

It is an excellent observation that the legend of the virgin birth came from Greece/Roman influence, and amazingly, at a time of Roman conquest, a Jewish God suddenly adopts the concept.

It is rather another good explanation for the OP other than insecurity... thanks again.

QUESTION:

argument ad absurdum.

?

And with what evidence or reasoning do you establish that claim?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 47 by polonius.advice]

Sorry, I thought I made reply a while ago...

The (almost) argument ad absurdum is based on Mary getting pregnant without God telling people around her with any certainty.

Imagine a local girl today repeated to others what the angel told Mary...
No one would believe it, and only the gullible would believe Mary, when she'd been seen with a handsome young Roman... or even if not.

It is absurd, to me that God didn't announce it in the heavens, with a loud voice. Instead he let her peers and elders believe she was giving birth to a bastard, or at least suspect as much.

It required writers almost 300 years later to clear it up for them.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 47 by polonius.advice]

Sorry, I thought I made reply a while ago...

The (almost) argument ad absurdum is based on Mary getting pregnant without God telling people around her with any certainty.

Imagine a local girl today repeated to others what the angel told Mary...
No one would believe it, and only the gullible would believe Mary, when she'd been seen with a handsome young Roman... or even if not.

It is absurd, to me that God didn't announce it in the heavens, with a loud voice. Instead he let her peers and elders believe she was giving birth to a bastard, or at least suspect as much.

It required writers almost 300 years later to clear it up for them.

RESPONSE: Which writers precisely and what was their evidence exactly?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 49 by polonius.advice]

Council of Nicaea, (325), and, if memory serves, they gathered up all the letters of the New Testament, destroyed them, so no one could confirm if they were right or wrong, and 'canonized' the New Testament.