Tuffa Nuff

I'm not much of a Biblical scholar, so I have been wondering lately; did God rape the mother of Christ Jesus, by making her pregnant, or did she and God discuss the matter first, and Mary give her permission?

Chris Weimer

In Matthew, there was nothing indicating permission, but there is something like that in Luke.

Clouseau

Gabriel told Mary what was going to happen, and that was all she had any right to. Mary had made her choice in the matter by a) being a Jew (which was certainly a live option in 'Galilee of the Gentiles'); by b) being a Jewess, one of whom was to give birth to the Messiah; by c) becoming betrothed, and to another Jew; by d) becoming betrothed to a man of the descent from whom the Messiah was to be part.

Gabriel told her she was 'lucky', and she should have thought so, too, if she was sincere in her choices. Had the God of the Jews advertised for candidates for mother of the Messiah, he should have had a queue that went round the temple seventy times seven!

Certainly, Mary did not complain. In fact, she said this:

"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me —
holy is his name.... He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers."

Luke 1:46-49, 54-55 NIV

Now whether Mary thought that bearing the Messiah was such a good idea once she got to know him is another question. But she had, and could have had, no complaint about her chosen status, because it was, ultimately, her own choice.

angelo

Christ was not the only man-god born of a virgin. There were dozens of mythical figures born of virgins. Both before and after Christ. Check out this site www.jesusneverexisted.com

RED DAVE

From Clouseau:
This strikes me as a fairly vicious remark. In other words, "Drop your spiritual drawers, bitch, you Holy Impregnator is here."

From Clouseau:
Uhh, can you find me a line in the OT indicating that the Messiah was to be conceived by the HS? This should be interesting as Jews, then and now, believe[d] in no such thing.

From Clouseau:
In the year 2007, the word "Jewsess" is considered by us Jews to be offensive. Please don't use it.

From Clouseau:
Considering the Joseph was not the father of JC, thiese points aremoot.

From Clouseau:
Uhh, if an invisible spook advertised for a bride, a priest would probably have been called to exorcise such a demon.

From Clouseau:
Pretty wrong wasn't she. The spiritual descendants of the brat she allegedly had in this pretty story haven't exactly been "merciful to Abraham through the years," have you?

From Clouseau:
Again, pure bullshit. Choice is when someone asks for consent. Mary wasn't asked. We call this rape in this culture.

RED DAVE

PhilosopherJay

Hi Tuffa Nuff,

I think it is important to consider that Mary was only recently contracted to marry Joseph when conception occurred. This would make her somewhere between 12 1/2 and 13 years old.

I think we have a pretty good case that even if she did give her consent, God should be up for 10-15 years on statutory rape charges. I am just trying to figure out who should prosecute the case (assuming the statute of limitations have not run out). The situation is not unlike the current one in the United States Congress where the Attorney General, the man in charge of enforcing laws, is himself accused of perjury and violating a multitude of other laws.

As always, we have the problem of who polices the police and who guards the guardians or in this case who judges God. I'm thinking that we should get Jesus Christ to do the judging, but he is obviously involved in the case and might prove to be sympathetic to the prosection as his own mother was the victim. However, since the accused is his father, he may show an unseemly perchance for clemency. Actually, I suspect his involviement makes him a bad choice for judging the case.

Now, we could consider the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, but I again foresee conflict of interest problems.

While I cannot come up with a judge, I can come up with the perfect prosecutor: Satan. That is, after all, his original job.

Anybody have suggestions for who should be the judge?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Chris Weimer

A) Man's law can't prosecute imaginary beings. B) There was no penetration, and rape is defined by penetration. If only touching occurs, then it's merely sexual assault. C) It was in Judaea. How you can mix up Western Laws with Judaean ones are far beyond me. Perhaps you should instead find out what the laws are according to the Torah, assuming, of course, that God would be treated as a human.

Minimalist

For a "non-biblical" scholar it's a pretty good question to show the chasm between ancient and modern "morality."

Tuffa Nuff

Maybe I'm just a stirrer, but I also wondered how Joseph was consulted, and how come God gets to make pregnant another man's wife, isn't that adultery?

Of course it'll probably be defined out of existence like the rape, (no penetration), but it still strikes me as very odd morality; but then God has special privileges doesn't he? When it comes to morality, God must believe in the policy, don't do as I do, do as I say.

Joan of Bark

Jay was clearly being facetious, Chris.

A sharp prosecutor -- let's say Satan -- could probably use linguistic arguments to support the claim of penetration. How else could pregnancy occur -- even by a god?

The Torah claims it is rape if the incident occurs outside the community, where her cries cannot be heard. If it is in the community, then it is not a crime since she obviously was not heard to cry out!