Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The word Almah means a young woman so we can ask why you have opted for young girl.
God, in the Molinistic view, has not in this case chosen a Jonah or a Judas but someone who is quite capable of understanding the intellectual, spiritual theological and personal ramification and consents in the words you have outlined prior to it happening.

When explaining a plan many people talk in the manner of the angel. I’m sure football managers talk about what the team will do.

Mary submits to the authority of God? I’m sure that happened before this point.

Fun as it is watching you indulge in special pleading, confirmation bias and defending the indefensible the central point you keep missing (deliberately?) is that, by modern standards, valid consent could not have been given because of either the likely under-age component of the story or because of the epic power relationship differential component of the story. Or because of both.

So which moral standard do you prefer: that of a servant girl-impregnating all-powerful god, or the current Western standard on such matters?

[ProfessorDavey]

The word Almah means a young woman so we can ask why you have opted for young girl.

Jewish tradition was that a girl became a woman when she reached puberty and that was also the point at which a girl/woman was considered to be able to marry. So they would have described a 12 year old who had reached puberty as a woman. We, of course, would describe her as a girl.

The very etymology of the word is extricably linked to puberty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, and not only that but ruling out the possibility of “consent to God” for reasons that keep being explained to you. By modern Western standards on the bare facts of the story as presented valid consent could not have been given.

Unless the impossibility is due to God not existing you are making an antitheistic argument with all the ad homing and muddied water that surrounds that sort, or a ultracalvinist/ultradeterministic

Where there can be non consent, there can be consent.

[ProfessorDavey]

When explaining a plan many people talk in the manner of the angel.

Not in the world of valid consent - that kind of language would be totally inappropriate. Valid consent is about choice and decision making by the person to whom that decision applies, not about a plan that someone else has for that person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jewish tradition was that a girl became a woman when she reached puberty and that was also the point at which a girl/woman was considered to be able to marry. So they would have described a 12 year old who had reached puberty as a woman. We, of course, would describe her as a girl.

The very etymology of the word is extricably linked to puberty.

linked to childbearing you mean. Youth extends beyond puberty you know. So does marriagabilty. You are being somewhat selective in order to maintain the sexual misconduct overtone.
You and Hillside with his God as Wicked sir Jasper and his serving girl schtick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fun as it is watching you indulge in special pleading, confirmation bias and defending the indefensible the central point you keep missing (deliberately?) is that, by modern standards, valid consent could not have been given because of either the likely under-age component of the story or because of the epic power relationship differential component of the story. Or because of both.

So which moral standard do you prefer: that of a servant girl-impregnating all-powerful god, or the current Western standard on such matters?

You are assuming that Mary is a minor on Zero grounds. You seem to have no idea where to place any immorality or have any fixed definition of immorality having tried coercion, sexual assault. You haven’t established these but also there is no western definition of minority as was pointed out to you several posts ago.

You cannot claim a moral zeitgeist or moral consensus elsewhere and then specially plead the opposite here and remain credibly neutral or balanced.

[Dicky Underpants]

The word Almah means a young woman so we can ask why you have opted for young girl.

The word Almah in the original Hebrew of Isaiah's prophecy meant young woman. However, the gospel writers took their version of the OT from the Septuagint, where the word was translated as 'parthenos', which more specifically meant a girl who was a virgin. It's obvious they thought Mary was a young girl virgin - that's the whole inspiration behind the gospel narratives of the Annunciation and Incarnation in the first place; the idea being to suggest that the Christ child was extremely special in having no human father. After all, what the hell is unusual or striking in a prophecy which states "Behold a young woman will conceive"? Big deal.

[ProfessorDavey]

linked to childbearing you mean. Youth extends beyond puberty you know. So does marriagabilty.

Nope - links to puberty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘almā, plural: עֲלָמוֹת‎ ‘ălāmōṯ, from a root implying the vigour of puberty.

And the term is considered to be used for a girl/woman who had reached puberty but not yet had a child.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are assuming that Mary is a minor on Zero grounds.

We do not know for sure how old Mary was, but that doesn't mean that assumptions have zero weight.

From the text we can conclude that Mary had reached puberty, but had not yet been married. Given that girls were typically married by the age of 13-15 we can take a reasonable starting point assumption based on knowledge of the culture and society of the time that Mary would likely have been between 12 and 15. That could, of course, be entirely wrong, but it is a reasonable assumption.

You, on the other hand, have nothing to support an assumption that she was considerably older than this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - links to puberty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘almā, plural: עֲלָמוֹת‎ ‘ălāmōṯ, from a root implying the vigour of puberty.

And the term is considered to be used for a girl/woman who had reached puberty but not yet had a child.

The use of the word girl is yours Davey and even then your equation with puberty alone is wrong as you admit in your last sentence.
Appeal to some kind of typical again,

[Dicky Underpants]

Nope - links to puberty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

Almah (עַלְמָה‎ ‘almā, plural: עֲלָמוֹת‎ ‘ălāmōṯ, from a root implying the vigour of puberty.

And the term is considered to be used for a girl/woman who had reached puberty but not yet had a child.

The Hebrew word עלמה (al-mah’) is often erroneously translated as “virgin.” A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa; but these two words are not synonymous! A betulah’ is not necessarily a young woman and a young woman is not necessarily a virgin.

https://weareisrael.org/spiritual-seed-2/male-child/betulah-vs-alm…

We really need to forget the Hebrew for the purposes of the above argument: it's the what the gospel writers thought the Greek parthenos meant that is the issue.

And to clarify that, Luke 1:34 tells us exactly what they thought it meant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We do not know for sure how old Mary was, but that doesn't mean that assumptions have zero weight.

From the text we can conclude that Mary had reached puberty, but had not yet been married. Given that girls were typically married by the age of 13-15 we can take a reasonable starting point assumption based on knowledge of the culture and society of the time that Mary would likely have been between 12 and 15. That could, of course, be entirely wrong, but it is a reasonable assumption.

You, on the other hand, have nothing to support an assumption that she was considerably older than this.

Again taking a typical and turning it into an absolute and yet you have already made an appeal to the atypical. What are you going for typical or atypical or both when it suits. You need to check what it is you are accusing God of and whether there is reason to doubt your assumed contentions...hint there is.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again taking a typical and turning it into an absolute and yet you have already made an appeal to the atypical. What are you going for typical or atypical or both when it suits. You need to check what it is you are accusing God of and whether there is reason to doubt your assumed contentions...hint there is.

I am not turning it into an absolute - I am turning it into a reasonable assumption.

Over to you to justify your assumption that Mary was atypical in being much older.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not turning it into an absolute - I am turning it into a reasonable assumption.

Over to you to justify your assumption that Mary was atypical in being much older.

Yes, I have explained why based on the text. Mary could be older based on any bell curve... do you have one?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I have explained why based on the text.

No you haven't - you have made a claim based on a rookie error of mistranslation, thinking the text said that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, when that is not what the text said at all.

You have also claimed that the words attributed to Mary suggested she was intellectually mature but you, of course, have absolutely no credible evidence that the words attributed to her were actually spoken by her.

And basically that is the sum total of your argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I have explained why based on the text. Mary could be older based on any bell curve... do you have one?

Why would you assume Mary is an outlier. And anyhow, this won't be a bell curve as there will be a skewed distribution.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes, I have explained why based on the text. Mary could be older based on any bell curve... do you have one?

No, you haven't. You've just singled out a few words and given either dodgy or inappropriate translations for them, based no doubt on a misunderstanding of how the New Testament came to be written.
Beyond saying that, though, I have to say that I think this whole discussion pretty jejune. As I've hinted at above, the whole infancy narratives were conjured up out of imagination and misunderstood prophecy, in order to suggest the divine origin of Jesus. There's certainly nothing in the later narratives to suggest these mythical narratives had much truth, and plenty to directly contradict them - not least the peculiar amnesia of Jesus' parents.

[ekim]

I have to say that I think this whole discussion pretty jejune. As I've hinted at above, the whole infancy narratives were conjured up out of imagination and misunderstood prophecy, in order to suggest the divine origin of Jesus. There's certainly nothing in the later narratives to suggest these mythical narratives had much truth, and plenty to directly contradict them - not least the peculiar amnesia of Jesus' parents.

I would agree with that.  Relating it to the vehemence of the discussion, it does give a clue as to what 'Religions have succeeded' at.

[ProfessorDavey]

- not least the peculiar amnesia of Jesus' parents.

Sorry - what do you mean by that DU?

[ProfessorDavey]

As I've hinted at above, the whole infancy narratives were conjured up out of imagination and misunderstood prophecy, in order to suggest the divine origin of Jesus.

Indeed - the whole thing appears as reverse engineering to get to a point they felt they needed to get to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unless the impossibility is due to God not existing you are making an antitheistic argument with all the ad homing and muddied water that surrounds that sort, or a ultracalvinist/ultradeterministic

Where there can be non consent, there can be consent.

I’ve schooled you on this already, so why have you returned to the same error?

There is a story in the Bible. The story concerns an all-powerful god sending an angelic envoy to a servant girl who was likely underage by today’s standards to tell her that she would be impregnated by this god.

The same Bible also tells us elsewhere that this god is morally perfect.

That’s the story remember?

By modern Western standards however this god of the story could not have acted morally well because the girl could not have given valid consent. She could not have given valid consent not because it’s all just a story (ie, your mistake) but, with respect to the content of the story, because of the likely age and relative power dynamics between this god and the girl. 

Even if it is all myth (as seems likely), it’s a myth held up as a moral good whereas it seems to me that, by modern standards, it’s anything but.   

Do you get it now?

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad,

I’ve schooled you on this already, so why have you returned to the same error?

There is a story in the Bible. The story concerns an all-powerful god sending an angelic envoy to a servant girl who was likely underage by today’s standards to tell her that she would be impregnated by this god.

The same Bible also tells us elsewhere that this god is morally perfect.

That’s the story remember?

By modern Western standards however this god of the story could not have acted morally well because the girl could not have given valid consent. She could not have given valid consent not because it’s all just a story (ie, your mistake) but, with respect to the content of the story, because of the likely age and relative power dynamics between this god and the girl. 

Even if it is all myth (as seems likely), it’s a myth held up as a moral good whereas it seems to me that, by modern standards, it’s anything but.   

Do you get it now?

Can't disagree with any of this.

[Dicky Underpants]

Sorry - what do you mean by that DU?

They were both, apparently, told by the Angel Gabriel that Mary would become pregnant by the Holy Spirit and the child would be the Son of the most High (or some such). Yet subsequently they are recorded as being surprised when he begins to behave in an unconventional manner, starting with his visit to the temple at the age of twelve, and at the start of his ministry, they, and other relatives wonder whether he is mad. Now, if you've been told by an angel that your son is the Incarnation of God, you might perhaps be prepared for certain rather unusual behaviour in his subsequent life.

[Dicky Underpants]

Can't disagree with any of this.

Ditto

[ProfessorDavey]

They were both, apparently, told by the Angel Gabriel that Mary would become pregnant by the Holy Spirit and the child would be the Son of the most High (or some such). Yet subsequently they are recorded as being surprised when he begins to behave in an unconventional manner, starting with his visit to the temple at the age of twelve, and at the start of his ministry, they, and other relatives wonder whether he is mad. Now, if you've been told by an angel that your son is the Incarnation of God, you might perhaps be prepared for certain rather unusual behaviour in his subsequent life.

Ah yes - good point. Almost as if someone made up the nativity story much later.