Not that I said that it was; rather I said that when one argues in support of what they have assumed or - in Floo's case - claimed, you are party to the misinformation.
I don't think I have argued in support of what Floo claims in terms of 1st century morality.
Why would God's morality preclude someone from getting married at 12 or 13, 20 centuries ago
If God's morality doesn't preclude somebody getting married at age 12 in the first century, it doesn't preclude somebody getting married at age 12 now because God is unchanging and his morality is absolute. Do you think it's OK for for a 12 year old girl in the 21st century to get married?
Note: I do not believe morality is absolute, so I could consistently hold the position that their age of consent and our age of consent are both OK.
Again, you show your own lack of critical thinking.
You clearly do not understand what that phrase means. In this case it means not accepting your source uncritically. I examined your source and decided it is likely to be accurate, but I also determined (by reading it) that its scope only covered the last century. It tells us nothing about the trends in puberty before the 19th century.
Furthermore, it claims that puberty has onset at an earlier age more recently. If you are going to extrapolate the report back to the first century, you must assume it was even higher then.
I was challenged as to my claim that the age of puberty differs markedly over time - full stop.
That is disingenuous: in the context of this thread, we are clearly concerned (or, at least you are) with modern puberty in comparison to the time of Mary.
Not really, I can think of lots of reports of the same event, but from different forms of the media, that have elements missing depending on the audience.
Tell me why you think all the authors apart from Luke would omit the story.
Except that, rather than merely being divine, he was human as well.
But following the events alleged at Jesus' birth, Mary would certainly remember that he was the prophesied Messiah. Unless one or both of these stories is fiction.
The problem is that, when one uses lit.crit. techniques on the Synoptic Gospels, they hang together surprisingly well, both individually and as a trio.
Well it's unfortunate that we are discussing history, not literary criticism then.
