Scotsguy44

I have posted this on my blog this evening but I'm interested how prevalent a defence of the view that Mary was raped is amongst non-Christians using the same, similar or other arguments to establish that case. Comments welcomed.

On an email discussion forum I was directed to the following YouTube video on the subject of the rape of Mary:

The Cold Case Against God by Netwriter - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsbI1tu9xJw

On viewing the short video several questions were raised in my mind pertaining to how strong or weak this case was as it appeared to me that it contained more inaccurate than accurate statements. In light of my concerns I formulated the following questions which have the intent to bring out those inaccurate statements or have them established.

1. The video gives the age of Mary as 13-15. What is the source of that information?
2. The video states as one of the charges, 'corrupting a minor'. What was the considered age of 'adulthood' and legal age of consent at the time of Mary's alleged conception?
3. The video claims that the suspect is 'three gods in one and one god with three different parts'. Which Christian creed defines God in this way?
4. The video states that the impregnation took place without consent of the victim. On what information from the sources is that being gleaned and how does it tally up with the words of the alleged victim in Luke 1:38 and why was the alleged victim so overjoyed at what had happened as recorded in Luke 1:46-56? Further, what do we know about the background context of the selection of Mary that is not recorded in the brief accounts of Matt. and Luke (i.e. what prayers or requests had Mary made to God with respect to the Messiah)?
5. The video states that the rape took place when the victim was married. On what textual evidence from the witnesses is this based?
6. The video assumes that this impregnation occurred via a forced act of sexual intercourse to ejaculation on Mary (rape). On what textual basis is this assumption made?
7. The video claims the suspect was the son of the victim resulting in him fathering himself. On what textual basis is this claim made?

I put these questions to the maker of the YouTube video and his response was to the effect that it was but satire. Whether that is true or not I do not know but it does not look as if intended as satire, either from the video itself, or from the hearty defence made of it by the maker in the comments sections.

However, whether satire or not, it warrants response for fear that naive, gullible, uninformed skeptics who view it might be misled into thinking it is trying to present a serious case from the text.

I do not know how prevalent the belief is by non-Christians that Mary was raped. My hope is that it is not held by many but this is an opportunity for anyone of that view to answer the above questions or indeed to present their own case to substantiate the charge.

Thanks
Matt

Toto

That was the normal age of marriage in ancient times - shortly after puberty

This is a confusion of modern concepts of adulthood and age of consent, which in modern societies are ofter well past puberty.

This is a warped version of the Trinity.
There is no "information" here. The claim seems to be that Mary's consent was not obtained in advance. But this whole story is mythological; it is further set in a time and place where a young girl's consent was not a factor of any relevance.

None. see above.

Absolutely none, unless you think that the story is based on the myths about Zeus impregnating various mortals.
None, since the Trinity has no textual basis.


Why do you think it is textually based?

This topic comes up periodically. Non-Christians have no reason to believe that the story of the virgin birth has any validity.

On occasion, someone tries to satirize Christianity by taking parts of it seriously, and to modern eyes, it looks like Mary did not consent to this pregnancy, which in the 21st century, would make this rape.

I find this whole effort misguided, because it's just a myth, and needs to be read in terms of the values of the first century.

Solo

naive, gullible, uninformed skeptics....looks like an oxymoron to me, Matt. :huh:

Best,
Jiri

mountainman

The earliest source for these claims is probably to be found in the Toledot Yeshu, where (in some mss) Mary is raped by the Roman soldier Ben Pandera, and Jesus as the illegitimate son, devoted to magic powers, a seducer, heretic and the victim of a shameful death.

IMHO the original author - a satirist - is deadly serious. "The work deliberately attacks and parodies the Christian Gospels." There is no doubt in my mind it presents as what may be termed "negative evidence" AGAINST the authenticity of the canonical storytale. Some unbelieving and anti-Christian satirist in antiquity took the Gospel stories apart and created another original work. It would be nice to know precisely when this occurred, but the chronology of the earliest texts is (as with practically every other text relevant to "Christian Origins") UNKNOWN.


There is no one BELIEF or no one generally accepted hypothesis about the conception of Jesus. That Jesus was sired not by God and the Holy Ghost, but by the rape of a Roman soldier is one of the possibilities in the line-up, and we do not have any eyewitnesses stepping forward from antiquity by which these two possibilities, amidst trackloads of other competing hypotheses, may be compared.

Scotsguy44

Yes, I'm aware of that but two points:

a) Does it follow that because normal then so the case with Mary?
b) Is not the answer you give, reasonable and accurate as it, in itself a counter-refutation to #2 on the 'corrupting a minor' charge?

I agree with both points you make above.

It is because of what you say that I asked the last question above about the background to the selection of Mary. Even if the text is taken as myth or fiction I think the question is still valid and of course consent is explicitly and implicitly given in the passages I cited above.

On your last point I should correct that question to what I had asked previously i.e. on what Christian creed is that based? The maker of the video is trying to make his point using the doctrine of the trinity but as before it's an incorrect view of that doctrine.


I have corrected the wording of my comment above so as to avoid giving the impression that i consider all skeptics naive etc. I do not think that it possible to build and sustain any good case from the text that Mary was raped. [A bit unsure to what your question is making reference to?]

Yes I understand what you say but I'm not arguing the virgin birth story has historical validity but only that there is no textual basis for the claim Mary was raped. That is something I hope that all rational minded individuals would conclude regardless of their worldview.

Thanks
Matt

Scotsguy44

Apologies, I corrected my statement as it was intended to read in my response to Toto. I, of course, recognize that the above applies only to some skeptics, just as the same applies to some believers.

Thanks
Matt

Scotsguy44

Thanks for the reference which I shall peruse with interest. Maybe I should clarify that my questions are in response to the specific video link that is calling as witnesses for its case GMatthew and GLuke. What I am arguing is that there is no textual justification for the charge regardless of the nature of the gospels (e.g. myth, fiction, biography, etc).

Yes, but what we do have is the accounts in GMatt and GLuke (the video makers 'witnesses') which in my view testify to the opposite conclusion the video is trying to make.

Thanks
Matt

John Kesler

Previous threads on this topic:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=133983
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...d.php?t=237326

Doug Shaver

If the conception of Jesus occurred as the gospels of Matthew and Luke said it occurred, then Mary was not raped, and nor did anything else inappropriate happen. To construe the narratives otherwise is to indulge in rank anti-Christian bigotry.

If the reply be made, "But we can't believe it happened the way the gospels said it happened," I would certainly agree. But then in that case, what is there to argue about?

Vorkosigan

Puberty happened later in antiquity. But never mind that. There's no useful information about Mary anywhere. It's all fiction.