|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 25, 2018 23:48:17 GMT
Where does it say that she was 16?  I didn't say she was 16, I said she was 13. The number is 12 because that was the age girls where considered to be eligible to marry. Allow nine months for her belly to swell...
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
There are other non-canonical texts known as the apocryphal writings that support this. Namely the text that concerns Joseph that also mentions she's prepubescent.
According to the bible, she was a virgin even after the wedding night to Joe. Right? From what you are suggesting, could it be that Joe felt like she was too young for sex and pregnancy at that point? Or any idea why she might have been a virgin or did the story tellers decide to make her one just to have her be more pure to them? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 25, 2018 23:58:32 GMT
I didn't say she was 16, I said she was 13. The number is 12 because that was the age girls where considered to be eligible to marry. Allow nine months for her belly to swell...
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
There are other non-canonical texts known as the apocryphal writings that support this. Namely the text that concerns Joseph that also mentions she's prepubescent.
According to the bible, she was a virgin even after the wedding night to Joe. Right? From what you are suggesting, could it be that Joe felt like she was too young for sex and pregnancy at that point? Or any idea why she might have been a virgin or did the story tellers decide to make her one just to have her be more pure to them? If I understand correctly Mary was betrothed to Joseph (engaged under a formal 1st Century Jewish wedding contract) at the time she became pregnant with Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 26, 2018 0:48:38 GMT
I didn't say she was 16, I said she was 13. The number is 12 because that was the age girls where considered to be eligible to marry. Allow nine months for her belly to swell...
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
There are other non-canonical texts known as the apocryphal writings that support this. Namely the text that concerns Joseph that also mentions she's prepubescent.
According to the bible, she was a virgin even after the wedding night to Joe. Right? From what you are suggesting, could it be that Joe felt like she was too young for sex and pregnancy at that point? Or any idea why she might have been a virgin or did the story tellers decide to make her one just to have her be more pure to them?
According to the apocryphal writings, Joseph was 90 years old when he married Mary. If so, I'd say it's more likely he was.... unable to perform.
There where other texts as well suggesting that the real father was a Roman soldier by the name of Tiberius Pantera and that he was paying the "virgin" to service her. Yes the "virgin" Mary was a prostitute. Needless to say, that work did not become a part of the Bible. The work is by a Greek philosopher named Celsus, has long been lost, however. The only reason we even know about it is because another writer, Origen discusses it in his work, Contra Celsum.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 26, 2018 1:05:44 GMT
According to the bible, she was a virgin even after the wedding night to Joe. Right? From what you are suggesting, could it be that Joe felt like she was too young for sex and pregnancy at that point? Or any idea why she might have been a virgin or did the story tellers decide to make her one just to have her be more pure to them?
According to the apocryphal writings, Joseph was 90 years old when he married Mary. If so, I'd say it's more likely he was.... unable to perform.
There where other texts as well suggesting that the real father was a Roman soldier by the name of Tiberius Pantera and that he was paying the "virgin" to service her. Yes the "virgin" Mary was a prostitute. Needless to say, that work did not become a part of the Bible. The work is by a Greek philosopher named Celsus, has long been lost, however. The only reason we even know about it is because another writer, Origen discusses it in his work, Contra Celsum.
Joseph wasn't 90, Mary wasn't a hooker. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 26, 2018 1:08:56 GMT
Where does it say that she was 16? I didn't say she was 16, I said she was 13. The number is 12 because that was the age girls where considered to be eligible to marry. Allow nine months for her belly to swell...
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
There are other non-canonical texts known as the apocryphal writings that support this. Namely the text that concerns Joseph that also mentions she's prepubescent.
Nothing supports the average age of a married woman was 13. It was highly unlikely that Mary was 13 at the time of her marriage. |
|
lava-rocks
Sophomore
@lavarocks
Posts: 690
Likes: 260
 
|
Post by lava-rocks on Nov 26, 2018 1:13:47 GMT
Mary was impregnated by Joseph, or a Roman soldier.
Watch the movie "Exposed (2016) for a good rendition.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 26, 2018 1:20:00 GMT
Mary was impregnated by Joseph, or a Roman soldier. Watch the movie "Exposed (2016) for a good rendition. No she wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 2:02:21 GMT
Mary was impregnated by Joseph, or a Roman soldier. Watch the movie "Exposed (2016) for a good rendition. No she wasn't. Dude... It was in a movie... They have it on film.  |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 26, 2018 2:06:37 GMT
I didn't say she was 16, I said she was 13. The number is 12 because that was the age girls where considered to be eligible to marry. Allow nine months for her belly to swell...
But the real reason is because the word "virgin" is an early mistranslation from Aramaic to too Greek. The original Aramaic word don't mean virgin, but a girl too young to get children, in other words prepubescent.
There are other non-canonical texts known as the apocryphal writings that support this. Namely the text that concerns Joseph that also mentions she's prepubescent.
Nothing supports the average age of a married woman was 13. It was highly unlikely that Mary was 13 at the time of her marriage. I don't see where it makes any difference whether she's 2026 years old now, 2032 years old now, 2038 years old now, or 2048 years old. She's over two thousand years old. It's pretty rude to make her tell her real age considering, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 3:10:55 GMT
Well, to be fair the bible is nothing but made up shit.
You can't play the "It's only as real as the point that I'm trying to make" game... We're either discussing the story as written or we're not. Well.. We don't see the scenario of her saying "No!" being played out.... (because she consented)
If you are referring to her staying a virgin after the birth of Jesus.... that's just Catholic folklore. The Bible says that Jesus did have several brothers and sisters...
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 26, 2018 6:32:24 GMT
Well, to be fair the bible is nothing but made up shit.
You can't play the "It's only as real as the point that I'm trying to make" game... We're either discussing the story as written or we're not. Well.. We don't see the scenario of her saying "No!" being played out.... (because she consented)
If you are referring to her staying a virgin after the birth of Jesus.... that's just Catholic folklore. The Bible says that Jesus did have several brothers and sisters...
The stuff I'm making up, as you claim, is nothing at all compared to the bible. Take a look at all the wars, genocide, oppression and other historic events that were and are horrible and miserable because of this book of made up stories to justify that misery and suffering at the hands of the powerful. I really don't see a clear case of her consenting. Even so, she conceived a child from another being other than her husband and that's what we are celebrating. I dunno about you but to me that seems really wonky and wrong. I like to think there really was a spiritual and enlightened being named Jesus who walked among the humans at the time. Other than that, all the other details of what really went on are probably really murkey. I mean, as others here pointed out someone else or a real human knocked up Mary but we can't have a sex slave as the mother of Jesus now can we? Instead let's have it be a holy spirit who didn't give her much of a choice to make it seem less like rape and that she fooled around while married. The point of the OP is to question if the conception of Jesus was as holy and pure as they make it out to be and I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 8:10:13 GMT
The stuff I'm making up, as you claim, is nothing at all compared to the bible. Take a look at all the wars, genocide, oppression and other historic events that were and are horrible and miserable because of this book of made up stories to justify that misery and suffering at the hands of the powerful. Yeah... but... That's like getting mad at The Beatles' White Album for the actions of Marylyn Manson. Once again.... because you're choosing not to. The story clearly has her being told of the events beforehand.. and her giving her permission. Others are fucking idiots.
Maybe we could... but, unfortunately... that's not how the story goes. Does it really seem that ludicrous and/or that upsetting to you that God would pick a virtuous and loyal girl?? Doesn't it seem someone like that would be the most likely of candidate? You're arguing about/questioning the actual details of a story that you don't believe actually happened? Do you know how fucking insane that is? That's like arguing/being upset about the actions of Harry Potter because you think that the concept of magic is ludicrous.
 - "But nobody actually thinks that Harry Potter is real!"
 - "Yeah... but, that's actually irrelevant to the point of your contention."
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 8:34:42 GMT
The fact that s he doesn't feel the need to justify it to you doesn't mean that there isn't any rationale behind her faith...Jus' sayin'. Well don't say, unless you know what you are talking about.
If one has faith in a belief over something like religion, of course it need to be rationalized, otherwise the belief is redundant and meaningless. What purpose does it serve and to what means?
Once again... because you're an idiot: It being rationalized in her ( kls) head has nothing to do with her feeling the need to justify it.. ...or, more specifically, not justify it to you.. precisely because you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 9:51:59 GMT
Once again... because you're an idiot: It being rationalized in her ( kls ) head has nothing to do with her feeling the need to justify it.. ...or, more specifically, not justify it to you.. precisely because you're an idiot. Yes, I know your an idiot so go and smell your own backside chimp.
It is not justified, because it can't be with rationale. This is a typical cop-out answer for Christians.
"Nuh-uh! You are!"... Is your response?  You don't get to decide her rationale, moron. Yours is a typical answer for an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 10:37:30 GMT
Are you on drugs or something, you simpleminded creature?
I get to ask what faith is though, since it was brought up in response to my question.
Your very first response to her was: To whom and how did she consent to this pregnancy k? Please don't tell me you believe in this nonsense.1) If you had a brain in your head: You'd already know who she consented to... It's in the story, retard. 2) kls has every right to see that ignorant asinine post as being far too aggressive to consider honestly answering... Why respond to a retard who is being openly retardedly aggressive? A person refusing to deal with a retard doesn't make that retard right.... It just means that they are deemed too retarded to respond to. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 26, 2018 11:02:53 GMT
Faith simply isn't something that needs justification. That's the point of it. Belief without proof. If one needed justification or proof it isn't faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 11:06:42 GMT
She said she doesn't need to justify faith, as that is not how it works.
She said that she doesn't have to justify her faith to you. You're the idiot that assumes that means that she doesn't have a rationale for herself. Nobody cares what you want. Next time... Don't be such an ignorant dickhead.... and maybe you'll get an actual response or two. I don't know what her justifications are.... I also don't claim to know more than her. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 26, 2018 11:09:43 GMT
Faith simply isn't something that needs justification. That's the point of it. Belief without proof. If one needed justification or proof it isn't faith. So what is faith then? That is all I am asking. If there is no proof, what are you having faith in? Faith is trust without proof. What someone has faith in varies depending on what they trust to be truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 11:12:13 GMT
Faith simply isn't something that needs justification. That's the point of it. Belief without proof. If one needed justification or proof it isn't faith. Okay... Now, this is a sentiment that I disagree with. Faith has to/should be based on something other than just blind wishful thinking or a feeling/hunch. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 26, 2018 11:14:03 GMT
So you don't have any rationale either, but I knew that along.
Now go and bury you head even further up your backside chump the chimp.
I never claimed to have any... Dippy the dipshit. |
|
