Religion Was the "Virgin" Mary unfaithful ?

[strongvoicesforward]

There are clearly perfectly rational explanations as to why a woman may claim to be a pregnant virgin, without the totally unfounded claims that she was a liar or otherwise of questionable morals.

And what would those "perfectly rational explanations" be?

 

[Kinsao]

And what would those "perfectly rational explanations" be?

I think you just provided a pretty good explanation yourself. Not wanting to die by stoning would seem to be a strong motive.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

A reiteration of perfectly rational explanations for a pregnant virgin

• Mistranslation of the term 'young woman'
  
• Fertilisation through some sexual act other than penetration - although that would require a rather narrow definition of 'virgin'.
  
• Accidental fertilisation through (for example) contaminated water. Extremely unlikely, but not impossible
  
• Parthenogenesis, followed by some hormonal misfiring causing the child to be male (though chromosomally female). Seems possible, though I'd have to read up a bit more to be sure. Any male child produced in this way would be undeniably special (unique?).

Four's not bad for a start.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

• Mistranslation of the term 'young woman'

• 
  
  I have no argument with this so long as all or most Christians will accept that Mary was not said to be a virgin and do not say she is. The only problem with that is, so many biblical scholars insist on translating ancient texts as "virgin" and not "young woman."
  
  

  [*]Fertilisation through some sexual act other than penetration - although that would require a rather narrow definition of 'virgin'.

  
  And how would that have been done 2000 years ago and what evidence is there that exists that people tried pregnancy without penetration and that it was successful?
  
  

  [*]Accidental fertilisation through (for example) contaminated water. Extremely unlikely, but not impossible.

  
  How many cases of this have ever been verified by scientists?
  
  

  [*]Parthenogenesis, followed by some hormonal misfiring causing the child to be male (though chromosomally female). Seems possible, though I'd have to read up a bit more to be sure. Any male child produced in this way would be undeniably special (unique?).

Again, any verified incidences of this ever happening? And if so, what are the possibilities?

Four's not bad for a start.

Those are all suppositions and closer to "rationalizations" rather than "rational" reasons.

Have you ever heard of "Occam's Razor?" It says that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. I would add that: when one is presented with a number of models to explain something and the answer can never be known for certain because of the inability to observe the event that is trying to be explained, the best and most probable choice to explain the event is the most simple and reasonable one based on the normal occurrances of life (i.e. choice) under the circumstances or similar circumstances that have happened before.

Since those assumptions/rationalizations you offered are so far on the low end of the scale of probability when compared to what I have offered, it is more prudent to abandon those and look at what has happened often througout history.

Many of women have lied about the father of their child to the cuckoled husband/fiance.

Many of people have had premarital sex.

Many of people have tried to escape punishment.

Many of people have conspired to escape punishment.

Many of people have lied.

These added together, all point to a far more simpler and much more probable explanation of Mary`s pregnancy rather than the other very low low chance and highly unlikely possibilities you offered above.

Again, those are grasping rationalizations and not the most probable of choices available to explain a pregnancy by someone who could face stoning for the pregnancy and one who would thus have a strong motive to lie and conspire in order to save her life.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Extremely unlikely != impossible

A suggestion of possibility != an assertion

Occam's razor does not require us to make up a story based entirely on imagination with absolutely no basis in fact. Occam's razor would probably favour the first explanation, which is that offered by Mars Man. Making up a story seems to me to 'multiply entities beyond necessity', whereas the translation error theory requires only that we deal with extant facts.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Occam's razor does not require us to make up a story based entirely on imagination with absolutely no basis in fact.

It is offering a possible (i.e. a very plausible one) scenario -- in fact lieing to cuckoled husbands and finance`s is not a scenario that is made up. It has happened many times. A story where a fat man in a red suit delivers toys around the world in one night is a story that is "made up."

Occam`s Razor is telling us to chose what is the most probable explanation.

Occam's razor would probably favour the first explanation, which is that offered by Mars Man.

Like I said, I may accept this if Christians accept that she in fact was not a virgin. However, there is still the matter of scholars who can't even agree on the correct term. If however they insist on Mary's insistant that she was indeed a virgin without intercourse, it cannot stand against the "cheat/premarital sex" explanation as being the more plausible. Remember, though, Mary even says she has not "known a man."

Making up a story seems to me to 'multiply entities beyond necessity', whereas the translation error theory requires only that we deal with extant facts.

It is offering a scenario to explain an event (in this case breaking of the Law). Judges do not say police and prosecuters are "making up a story" when they are offering a scenario to explain a crime that their case hinges on. Santa Clause is a made up story for that is not a possible scenario.

Scholars disagree about the translation. Mary even says she has not "known a man."

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Occam`s Razor is telling us to chose what is the most probable explanation.

Ockham's razor tells us not to 'multiply entities beyond necessity'. It says nothing at all about probability.

Like I said, I may accept this if Christians accept that she in fact was not a virgin. However, there is still the matter of scholars who can't even agree on the correct term.

Whether it is widely accepted or not does not exclude it as a possibility - the fact that it is the simplest explanation remains. I'm sure Mars can give us some more background on that side of it.

 

[Mars Man]

strongvoicesforward san, do you know the account given by the writers of the 'New Testament' of Jeshua's being born from a given woman due to supernatural occurance to be true history? Yes or no, and nothing more !!

 

[PRIZMATIC]

P.S.
:blush: There is one more version - " the Recognition that Joseph is father to Jesus, this recognition of that in it has proved the God, so an indirect recognition that a Jews - it is " elected people "... And it, christians could not allow... As then under "doubt" is them "Elected"... :angel: :music:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Ockham's razor tells us not to 'multiply entities beyond necessity'. It says nothing at all about probability.

By not multiplying the entities beyond necessity you are left with the most probable choices. Those choices you gave above as explaining how Jesus came about are not probable and are merely increasing choices byond what is necessary to explain a normal event -- impregnation/birth.

Occam`s Razor would surely allow me to cut out Santa Clause as the person delivering all the toys on Christmas and all those elves in icy hideouts producing them. Why? Because we already have a normal working observable model, Dad, factories, stores, delivery trucks, etc... that explain all that without having to multiply a multitude of other entities to explain how presents get under the tree.

Likewise, we know how impregnation/births occur, so we need not go into the bath water thing or other outlandish low possible things to explain things.

Whether it is widely accepted or not does not exclude it as a possibility - the fact that it is the simplest explanation remains. I'm sure Mars can give us some more background on that side of it.

Well, I am all for exposing the fraud of this divinity thing of this "miraculous" birth (80% being defined as a miracle by some here) and if she was just a "young woman" and not a "virgin" then great. I won`t argue on that point. But, the majority of Christians won`t accept that so that leaves me with calling into question her motives for claiming she was a virgin. Avoiding stoning is a big and valid motive for someone to claim to have gotten pregnant without sleeping around.

Tsuyoiko, you are still forgetting, or have not acknowledged that Mary herself even claims to have "not known a man." Why aren`t you addressing that? It is one thing for translaters to call her a virgin, it is quite another for her to call herself one.

Also, Tsuyoiko, I asked you some other direct questions above and you failed to address any of them. Does that mean you have abandoned them (the other rationalizations at explaining) and are now just going with the "translation" error? Actually, I think that is the better decision to do so because all those other ones are just about virtually impossible (I know I know -- you are probably going to quote and bold or underline my "just about virtually impossible" line as a means to keep wiggle room).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

strongvoicesforward san, do you know the account given by the writers of the 'New Testament' of Jeshua's being born from a given woman due to supernatural occurance to be true history? Yes or no, and nothing more !!

Mars Man, are you asking me if I have read the New Testement? I have -- a number of times.

Or are you asking me if I know it (i.e. Jesus' supernatural conception/birth) to be true?

I don`t accept his conception/birth (if in fact he is a real character) to be supernatural just because a legendary story says so any more than I would accept Athena popped out of Zeus' head from a splitting headache.

Do you think Jesus was born of a virgin and his conception was a divine supernatural act done by Bible God? Do you think the account is true?

Just what do you think, Mars Man? After reading your posts I am often left with wondering if you have ever forcefully come down on an issue with a clear cut opinion after making a decision? I see a lot of "Nice post," "Welcome to the forum," "may mean this or not," and other seemingly non-conclusive comments by you, but I am always left with wondering if you have a concrete opinion on something or if you are still on the fence. If on the fence, are you expecting to be on the fence for life without coming to a decision?

Now, perhaps I am wrong about you not making clear decisions and comments. One or two threads you have posted in is quite long and I have not read all of it, but when I do read your posts I come away with the thought that you are more concerned with not wanting to offend anyone rather than giving up your decisions on the matter other than the decision may be this or it may be that -- which is no decision but only dithering.

If you are undecided, there is nothing wrong with that. But I think you should just clearly say it. Most of your posts however, seem to show you wanting to give as much wiggle room to the Bible as possible as if you are wanting to lean in that direction even though you have said you were an Agnostic (I think I read you stated you were an Agnostic before).

YOu see Mars Man, it appears you are trying to be everything to everybody -- a kind of chamelion if you will. I once read, "trying to be everything to everybody makes you meaning nothing or very little to everyone," -- other than someone who is nice, everyone likes, but whose true opinion is unstated or not clearly known.

As for me, I am more than willing to step on a few toes so long as I am open and honest with my views and everyone knows clearly my stance on a topic. I, too, may dither from time to time, but I am not a fence sitter. I will jump off and if time requires that I jump on again or on the other side, I will. But, I will be very clear about that. Maybe you have been and I have just missed it, but most of your posts seem to be probings in order to create doubt, possibilities or wiggle room for the bible or to make eveyone happy.

You may disagree wholly with my assessment and that is fine. I won`t push it, but that is just how I view most of your posts -- fence sitting.

So, what do you believe in regards to the Bible and Christianity and the virgin conception/birth? I want to here it in clear terms and "nothing more!!"

 

[bossel]

[*]Fertilisation through some sexual act other than penetration - although that would require a rather narrow definition of 'virgin'.

Penetration is definitely not necessary. I don't know the English name for it, but what we in Germany call Petting (tenderness up to the point of male ejaculation, but without genital penetration) could suffice if a drop of sperm entered the vagina.

[*]Accidental fertilisation through (for example) contaminated water. Extremely unlikely, but not impossible

Almost impossible. AFAIK, water destroys the ability of sperm to impregnate.

 

[Mars Man]

strongvoicesforward san, do you know the account given by the writers of the 'New Testament' of Jeshua's being born from a given woman due to supernatural occurance to be true history? Yes or no, and nothing more !!

strongvoicesforward san, I am simply asking just exactly what the words above allow--just in case, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will rearrange the question, using some paraphrase.

In the 'New Testament' there is an account (in the form of claims and historiograph) regarding the birth of Jeshua. According to that account and those statements, one Mary became impregnated by supernatural means. That account is presented as having actually occured. Do you know that that is, indeed, true history? Yes or No; no other explanation is required.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

strongvoicesforward san, I am simply asking just exactly what the words above allow--just in case, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will rearrange the question, using some paraphrase.
In the 'New Testament' there is an account (in the form of claims and historiograph) regarding the birth of Jeshua. According to that account and those statements, one Mary became impregnated by supernatural means. That account is presented as having actually occured. Do you know that that is, indeed, true history? Yes or No; no other explanation is required.

That is a loaded question Mars Man and I recognized it right off the bat.

To phrase a question about something that is not proven (despite unfairly expecting someone to accept "that account as historical") with words such as "indeed," and "true," in the manner of "Do you know...?" is deceptive.

If you phrased it as "Do you believe or do you accept...?" then it would be an honest question.

Here:

Do you know that the story Santa Clause flying around on a sleigh with reindeer is, indeed, a true story in history?

If I answer "Yes," then I am stating my belief in it. However, even if I answer "No," I am just admitting to I don`t know it is historical truth -- but still cedes that it is truth -- It is just my knowledge that is lacking and not the truth of the matter.

It is a classical loaded question which you have asked, Mars Man. Why not ask an honest one like, "Do you believe...?" or "Do you accept...?"

I don`t think you would like it if the police called you down to the station and asked you, "Do you remember how many times you beat your wife last week?" and then say, " Answer, "Yes, or No! No other explanation is required," would you?

Reread your post. Don`t you see how that is a loaded question?

Mars Man, are you playing semantics with me?

 

[Mars Man]

You may see it as loaded due to the way you see things. I ask it not as a loaded question, but in honesty. I am simply asking if you claim to 'know' that that was history, and I only want that answer for now. That's all.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

You may see it as loaded due to the way you see things. I ask it not as a loaded question, but in honesty. I am simply asking if you claim to 'know' that that was history, and I only want that answer for now. That's all.

I do not believe nor accept that the account in the Bible explaining Jesus' conception/birth as historical because I do not believe the Bible or the supernatural claims in it to be proven as actual events happening in the way they are told therein.

I asked you an honest question and not a loaded one (unlike you to me): Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin? Do you believe Jesus' conception was caused by Bible God? Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe in the Christian or Jewish God? All those are simple yes and no questions for the yes and no answers you want or felt fair in asking without explanations.

Just what do you believe, Mars Man???

I, too, "only want" those "answers for now. That`s all."

 

[Mars Man]

As it is true that only because a person makes a claim, that claim itself is not true until known, or taken as known to be true, it is true that asking a question does not amount to answering a question, and my question to you was without any doubt whatsoever first, and dependent on an answer.

Now, re-ask me the question which you wish, and I will honestly answer.

 

[nurizeko]

This thread needs moving to the humor section and the serious discussion posts placed in a new serious discussion thread: "how did mary come about to birthing jesus?".
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, back in the day people would of more readily beleived a male, grown up self proclaimed messiah then a woman with an infant claiming so, it would be like my mum claiming i was the second comming of jesus when i was born, her neighbours would laugh her out of town and ide get put in for adoption.
But chances are if i made the claim now, myself, maybe more people would be ready to believe me.
If not and god did do his thang then, we already know how it happened. God you stud you, hehehehe :bluush:

Ive heard of the unlikely event of women climaxing just by being looked at by a man, but to get impregnated, hehehehe.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Now, re-ask me the question which you wish, and I will honestly answer.

1. Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin?
2. Do you believe Jesus' conception was caused by Bible God?
3. Do you believe Jesus is the son of god/messiah?
4. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
5. Do you believe in the Christian or Jewish God?
6. What if any doctrines of Christianity do you believe in?
7. Do you believe there are contradictions in the Bible.
8. Do you believe there are falsehoods in the Bible.
9. Do you believe in the supernatural events in the Bible as having happened or have happened and caused by Bible God?

I added a few questions. Except for no#6, they are all simple "yes, no" questions. Hope you don`t mind the few added ones. If you do, then feel free to just answer the original ones.

 

[Mars Man]

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 !

I will answer your questions honestly, concisely and to the point, yet dependent on these three points--namely that the referent for "Jesus" is the possibly real, historical figure behind the story, and not the character acting within the bounds of the story; the referent for "Bible god" is the character acting within the bounds of the story; and the referent for "Bible" is all biblical literature, canonical and non-canonical:
#1 No
#2 No
#3 No
#4 No
#5 No
#6 Some doctrines of Christianity are actually pre-Christian 'doctrines of nature--I do believe in those !
#7 Yes
#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 !!!

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?

Will you answer the above question in as precise and adhering-to-the-pertinant-data as possible an format?

Thank you.