Jill Duggar Dillard Part 10: Taking Photos of Screaming Izzie

[Jucifer]

12 hours ago, Catey said:

The only thing about Mary that I never got was HOW/WHY she was a virgin.

She was after all married to Joseph so one would assume at some point they would share a bed, no?

But somehow she is the eternal virgin.

We will never know for sure, but Mary may have been a very young teenager when she gave birth to Jesus.  That might explain her virginity.

[justoneoftwo]

21 minutes ago, Jucifer said:

We will never know for sure, but Mary may have been a very young teenager when she gave birth to Jesus.  That might explain her virginity.

I'm sorry to be dense, but how would that explain her virginity?  She was married at that age, why would being young have anything to do with if her husband slept with her?

[Jucifer]

18 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I'm sorry to be dense, but how would that explain her virginity?  She was married at that age, why would being young have anything to do with if her husband slept with her?

Well, she might have been newly married (at that age) while pregnant with J, so Joseph let her be until J was born (?)

IDK, just thinking out loud.

[Drala]

1 hour ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

As for the quoted verses, the clergy love to say that adelfòs means both brother and cousin. It's a vey unlikely explanation imho, but it's legit. It's also true that in most Mediterranean cultures first grade cousins and akin to brothers. 

Or, Catholic clergy will argue that they were step-brothers, children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.  That's the "old man" Joseph scenario, where he doesn't mind living in a marriage without sexual relations.

[Bad Wolf]

They weren't married when Mary got pregnant, so Joseph could have abandoned her, but he was a righteous man.

[livinginthelight]

Most reputable biblical scholars say that girls (including Mary) would have been 13 or 14 years old at the time of marriage. Husbands tended to be older because they needed to be able to support a wife. An engagement was considered an unbreakable commitment, requiring a proceeding akin to divorce. Mary was a virgin because she was engaged to, but not married to, Joseph. If the baby had been his, I think they would just have sped up the wedding. Or had a "preemie".

 

[IrishCarrie]

As the proud recipient of an evil Catholic education, I can answer this one!

Sr. Aloyisus told us that 'virgin' in this context was a word used to describe a woman that hadn't yet had a child. So Mary, as a first time mother, was a virgin when she has Jesus, and obviously not then a virgin afterwards.

Then again, this may have been a complete red herring to stop a roomful of teenagers obsessing on the sex aspects of the story 

[libriatrix]

18 minutes ago, livinginthelight said:

Most reputable biblical scholars say that girls (including Mary) would have been 13 or 14 years old at the time of marriage. Husbands tended to be older because they needed to be able to support a wife. An engagement was considered an unbreakable commitment, requiring a proceeding akin to divorce. Mary was a virgin because she was engaged to, but not married to, Joseph. If the baby had been his, I think they would just have sped up the wedding. Or had a "preemie".

 

Yes, I've always been taught that Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not yet married, so it would have been expected that they weren't sleeping together just yet. In case that's too ambiguous, though, there's the verse mentioned above Matthew 1:25, where is specifies that Joseph didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. I've never understood the Catholic doctrine that she remained a virgin after the birth though, because that verse seems to heavily imply  that Joseph  did consummate the marriage afterwards; if not why on earth wouldn't you just say "and he never lay with her." 

[Jucifer]

2 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

Yes, I've always been taught that Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not yet married, so it would have been expected that they weren't sleeping together just yet. In case that's too ambiguous, though, the Bible does specify, in Matthew 1:25, that Joseph didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. 

This is what I meant.  Libriatrix said it much better.

[MakeItSo]

8 minutes ago, IrishCarrie said:

As the proud recipient of an evil Catholic education, I can answer this one!

Sr. Aloyisus told us that 'virgin' in this context was a word used to describe a woman that hadn't yet had a child. So Mary, as a first time mother, was a virgin when she has Jesus, and obviously not then a virgin afterwards.

Then again, this may have been a complete red herring to stop a roomful of teenagers obsessing on the sex aspects of the story 

I recently watched a documentary on netflix where it was mentioned that the use of the word "virgin" comes from how the actual word that was used in the original text was translated and that other translations of the actual word just mean "young", so I think that kind of goes along with what you're saying a bit.

[2manyKidzzz]

Somehow I do not think Jesus was concerned about all of this. It was not part of his message. I had not heard the part about virgin meaning her first child, which makes sense. @IrishCarrie Did this explanation still include the part where no earthly man was the father, i'm sure it did. All shrouded in mystery. Not essential in my opinion, which is not mainstream for sure. 

[Catey]

At this point I would say that in a few pages more thoughtful conversation has been had on Religion that has ever happened in the history of the Duggar clan.

Yet we are the heathens..

God forbid that you think about, examine and discuss what you think and believe.

The truth should be able to stand the test of thoughtful discussion.

[AlysonRR]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-says-pregnant-women-should-stay-clear-of-zika/

This is a really serious and scary risk for women of childbearing age: 

Quote

CDC is now recommending that women in any trimester of pregnancy “should consider postponing travel to the areas where Zika virus transmission in ongoing.” So far, most evidence suggests the risk to pregnant women is greatest during the first trimester. For women who are trying to get pregnant CDC recommends consulting with a healthcare provider before traveling to these areas. People traveling to any of the 14 areas covered under the warning should make sure windows in their lodgings have screens and strictly follow steps to prevent mosquito bites during the trip, including wearing long sleeves, long pants and applying insect repellents containing substances like DEET. 

How soon do you think Jill and Derrick will be returning home?

 

[Whoosh]

Calling on Episcopalians to help me out here.  As a non-theist raised in the Episcopal Church, I am now sitting here wondering what I was taught about all of this.  Whether I was taught this or not, growing up it was always my understanding that "christians" believed that Mary was a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus.  After that, she presumably had sex with her husband.  However, I was never taught that Jesus had siblings and I guess it was my understanding that James et all were brothers and sisters in a more general way rather than through parentage.  I hope that makes sense.  Anyway, sitting here thinking about it now, that seems to possibly make even less sense than any other brand or version of the story?  So, she remained a virgin and the "brothers" are really cousins is internally consistent.  She did not remain a virgin and gave birth to the true genetic brothers of Jesus is also internally consistent.  I guess my version - she did not remain a virgin, but the "brothers" are really cousins or something could also be true, but it seems like a harder position to justify.  So, I just tried to search for info on this from the Episcopal church and things I am finding basically say "there is disagreement" without taking a stand.  I know the views of Christians vary widely, I am just wondering what other Episcopalians think about the whole thing.  Here is an example of the types of statements I am finding from Episcopalian sources.

"(James the Just). In the gospels according to Matthew and Mark, and in the epistle to the Galatians, James of Jerusalem is referred to as the brother of Jesus. According to 1 Cor 15:7, he witnessed an appearance of Christ after the resurrection. Some scholars argue that he is a cousin or half-brother of Jesus, and that the word "brother" is used in a generic sense to describe his relationship to Jesus. Roman Catholics who uphold the perpetual virginity of Mary do not acknowledge that James was the son of Mary and Joseph. James was clearly a leader of the church at Jerusalem. He presided at the Council of Jerusalem which dealt with issues that divided Jewish and Gentile Christians. James was put to death in Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin in 62. James is traditionally acknowledged as the author of the epistle of James in the NT. James's authorship of this epistle has been challenged, but not conclusively refuted. Hegesippus, an early church historian, referred to James as "the Just" for his piety, and claimed "that he was holy from his mother's womb." James is commemorated in the Episcopal calendar of the church year on Oct. 23."

[Georgiana]

27 minutes ago, Catey said:

At this point I would say that in a few pages more thoughtful conversation has been had on Religion that has ever happened in the history of the Duggar clan.

Yet we are the heathens..

God forbid that you think about, examine and discuss what you think and believe.

The truth should be able to stand the test of thoughtful discussion.

I always felt that Fundies subscribed to a form of Christianity more akin to that seen in the His Dark Materials/Golden Compass universe where "God" is actually a tyrant who wants to keep humanity ignorant, under-developed, child-like and dependant; whereas "Satan" is the one who encourages learning, growth, and asking questions.

Basically, I think the Duggars would see this discussion as "evil" or at least "dangerous".  Questions and learning are Satan's domain.  Godly Christians have blind, child-like faith.  

[Bad Wolf]

Episcopalian here. Our church doesn't spend a lot of time on the virginity of Mary, but rather on the message of Jesus, feeding the poor, etc. Other Episcopal churches might have a different take on it.

We're of the mindset that it doesn't matter how you get there, so we don't condemn other religions, including non Christian ones.

[Bad Wolf]

Wonder where they'll live when they get back.

[SilverBeach]

15 hours ago, Whoosh said:

I had just always assumed that the virgin tag applied to before she gave birth to Jesus, not after.  It had never crossed my mind that anyone would think otherwise until I stumbled onto a somewhat fascinating yet horrifying internet debate on the topic.  Apparently, this distinction matters a great deal and there is much disagreement.  It was very interesting to watch that conversation.

Mary gave birth to the siblings of Jesus. It is the virgin birth of Jesus that is miraculous.

[Whoosh]

9 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Mary gave birth to the siblings of Jesus. It is the virgin birth of Jesus that is miraculous.

I hear you saying that is what you believe.  Others don't believe that Mary gave birth to the siblings of Jesus.  I think all Christians would agree that the birth of Jesus is what is miraculous.  All Christian's don't agree on other things - such as how many children Mary gave birth to apparently.

[Catey]

33 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

where "God" is actually a tyrant who wants to keep humanity ignorant, under-developed, child-like and dependant

Yet again another example of my theory of ugly people = ugly God.

 

12 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Mary gave birth to the siblings of Jesus. It is the virgin birth of Jesus that is miraculous.

Which is why I just never got the Virgin Mary title, still vying for something more akin to Mary who had the Virgin birth..

[Whoosh]

26 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

Episcopalian here. Our church doesn't spend a lot of time on the virginity of Mary, but rather on the message of Jesus, feeding the poor, etc. Other Episcopal churches might have a different take on it.

We're of the mindset that it doesn't matter how you get there, so we don't condemn other religions, including non Christian ones.

Thanks Bad Wolf.  This really is my understanding of the Episcopal faith also.  I know I have thoughts on these things in my head, but I don't know exactly how they got there and I certainly don't judge or condemn others for their beliefs (unless those beliefs are actively harmful to others, but that gets complex).

[SilverBeach]

1 minute ago, Whoosh said:

I hear you saying that is what you believe.  Others don't believe that Mary gave birth to the siblings of Jesus.  I think all Christians would agree that the birth of Jesus is what is miraculous.  All Christian's don't agree on other things - such as how many children Mary gave birth to apparently.

It is not just a matter of what I believe. Jesus definitely had siblings, and they were definitely born after he was, so where did they come from?

I am well aware of the many controversies and disagreements in the Christian theological world, I have been in it and studied it for quite some time.  

In any case, most of the disagreements are of no consequence to me, as I focus on the pronouncements of Jesus himself to love God  first and everybody else second. It is all about love, to me.

Imma leave this alone.

 

38 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

Episcopalian here. Our church doesn't spend a lot of time on the virginity of Mary, but rather on the message of Jesus, feeding the poor, etc. Other Episcopal churches might have a different take on it.

We're of the mindset that it doesn't matter how you get there, so we don't condemn other religions, including non Christian ones.

This sounds almost UU, I have no problem with this either. Other than as recited in the Apostles Creed, Mary as the Virgin Mary is hardly ever mentioned in my church (I am a Protestant flavor, but I have yet to find any religious org that I believe 100% of what they teach). 

[Whoosh]

11 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

It is not just a matter of what I believe. Jesus definitely had siblings, and they were definitely born after he was, so where did they come from?

I am well aware of the many controversies and disagreements in the Christian theological world, I have been in it and studied it for quite some time.  

In any case, most of the disagreements are of no consequence to me, as I focus on the pronouncements of Jesus himself to love God  first and everybody else second. It is all about love, to me.

Imma leave this alone.

 

LOL - ok.  So you are right and massive numbers of Christians, a butt-load of Christian scholars and elders, and MYSELF are wrong.  Got it.  Tell me if I say it right for you "Jesus (who may not have existed) had siblings (though many believe they were cousins and it could all just be a story), so Silverbeach is right".  I realize that is snarky, but your responses to me and how you speak of the beliefs of others are also snarky, as it REALLY is just a matter of what you believe.  As a non-theist, I am not all that tied to being right on who Jesus' siblings were if you can imagine that.  

I personally don't believe in God, but I think the lessons I learned about how to be like Jesus Christ are quite valuable.  Love thy neighbors (all of them) - stuff like that.

[Jucifer]

Sorry to derail this thread but I love your avatar, Whoosh! (or is it an icon, IDK, I'm old so please take pity on me.  )  That's from the video of my favorite song (Dear God) by one of my favorite bands, XTC, am I right?

Trying to insert a link to the video here, but as I said, I'm old so it may not work.

 

 

and it didn't work, on my screen anyway.

 

[Whoosh]

2 minutes ago, Jucifer said:

Sorry to derail this thread but I love your avatar, Whoosh! (or is it an icon, IDK, I'm old so please take pity on me.  )  That's from the video of my favorite song (Dear God) by one of my favorite bands, XTC, am I right?

Trying to insert a link to the video here, but as I said, I'm old so it may not work.

 

 

That is it!  That song was the first time I realized that there were others out there that had questions about the version of a higher power they were being handed.  It was a pretty big deal for me to find that validation of something I had never felt brave enough to speak.  I was raised in a great church and loved all the messages I learned there - I just never believed in the deity part.  Anyway - I was 16 when that song came out.  Love the whole album.