Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Luminesa]

Speculation nonetheless.

The Protoevangelium was condemned and rightfully so. Certain claims with respect to Our Lady remain speculation. We can pray on the matter, we can certainly believe one conclusion or the other to be true but there is no definitive reason, let alone theological basis to presume that Our Lady was immorally young at the conception and birth of Christ. While brilliant, many church fathers were also prone to mistaken conclusions. For example, the many foregone conclusions of Origen.

The Protoevangelium was not necessarily "condemned" but more...stuck on the side? It's not seen as divinely-inspired, but that doesn't mean it can't include some factual evidence about Mary's life.

Origen was not the only Church Father to take info from the Protoevangelium.

[Sundiata]

[redacted]

[Cordel One]

Because of sunny's *ahem* more than appropriate feelings towards Mary.

Oh brother. Sun isn't fetishizing Mary and hasn't.

I don't know why people have decided to spread such a disgusting rumor just because he loves Our Mother and uses a lot of flowery language.

I think it's just lighthearted teasing, like this:

UwU

It's true, God is always pursuing your love. You're valuable; you matter more than you can ever know.

[Sundiata]

[redacted]

[Luminesa]

Sun, please stop dragging arguments from other threads into this one. TG the people you're having issues with or go answer them in the proper thread. Arch already mentioned he didn't want you to do this.

[Salus Maior]

Oh brother. Sun isn't fetishizing Mary and hasn't.

I don't know why people have decided to spread such a disgusting rumor just because he loves Our Mother and uses a lot of flowery language.

I think it's just lighthearted teasing, like this:

It's true, God is always pursuing your love. You're valuable; you matter more than you can ever know.

I mean, it's not that lighthearted. It's a pretty serious accusation and frankly just really gross.

That being said, I don't think descriptions of Mary's physicality really have any place in Marian devotion. I don't see how it's at all relevant.

[Sundiata]

For the record: I didn't bring the discussion pertaining to Mary's age to this thread.

[Tarsonis]

I think it's just lighthearted teasing, like this:

I mean, it's not that lighthearted. It's a pretty serious accusation and frankly just really gross.

That being said, I don't think descriptions of Mary's physicality really have any place in Marian devotion. I don't see how it's at all relevant.

It's been brought up because in the past, Sun has, perhaps without meaning to, used language that borders on romantic devotion. In his earlier Marian devotions there was a very palpable "Faith+1" vibe. That said I've not seen anything broaching that level since it was addressed back then, so I don't know why it's been brought up again.

[Tarsonis]

Why do you feel so strongly about this?

Because of sunny's *ahem* more than appropriate feelings towards Mary.

That really has nothing to do with your line of question. Regardless of what age St. Mary was married, it is irrelent to any of Sunds feelings. Even if Sun harbors a romantic ideation towards the Blessed Virgin, she's over 2000 years old at this point so what ever poisoning of the well nonsense you're playing at is expressly that, nonsense.

[Cordel One]

Because of sunny's *ahem* more than appropriate feelings towards Mary.

That really has nothing to do with your line of question. Regardless of what age St. Mary was married, it is irrelent to any of Sunds feelings. Even if Sun harbors a romantic ideation towards the Blessed Virgin, she's over 2000 years old at this point so what ever poisoning of the well nonsense you're playing at is expressly that, nonsense.

Suuuure she's over 2000 years old, that's what they all say.

[Tarsonis]

That really has nothing to do with your line of question. Regardless of what age St. Mary was married, it is irrelent to any of Sunds feelings. Even if Sun harbors a romantic ideation towards the Blessed Virgin, she's over 2000 years old at this point so what ever poisoning of the well nonsense you're playing at is expressly that, nonsense.

Suuuure she's over 2000 years old, that's what they all say.

Read the room man, realllllly not the time for that.

[Cordel One]

Suuuure she's over 2000 years old, that's what they all say.

Read the room man, realllllly not the time for that.

Kinda hard to read the room when we're on a forum, but if you say so lol

[Tarsonis]

Read the room man, realllllly not the time for that.

Kinda hard to read the room when we're on a forum, but if you say so lol

No it isn't. You're literally reading the room.

[Cordel One]

Kinda hard to read the room when we're on a forum, but if you say so lol

No it isn't. You're literally reading the room.

Literally reading, there is no room. Without expressions it can be diffiult to see the tone. Regardless, I'm gonna head out of your religious thread now. Regardless, I'm gonna leave because this is unrelated to your religion.

[The Archregimancy]

Historically the age in which a person could get married was when they started puberty but often this was delayed for a number of years, especially for non-aristocratic marriages. For example, female Romans could legally get married at the age of 12 but often they wouldn't get married until their mid to late teens and a little bit beyond that for the lower classes. Even in post-Babylonian Exile Judaism, 14 was considered the ideal age for marriage, which was generally after many girls had already started puberty, not to mention that the process of getting married could take up to a year, ie they would have been closer to 15 when all is done and they could legally consummate. Generally speaking, aristocratic families would have been the ones closer to that ideal as opposed to non-aristocratic ones.

It gets more confusing considering that in a lot of cases, engagements would be made at 12 (or even before then) but the marriage itself was often delayed until a few years later. Also as I mentioned earlier, the process of getting married in Jewish families back then could take up to a year but from the beginning of being betrothed a couple would be considered a married couple. Given that ~15 (give or take a year) is when a lot of female aristocrats tended to get married in most societies (and whether or not this would be from the start of betrothal for Jewish ones or when it's done I wouldn't know), and Mary was not one, it's more probable that she wasn't younger than 16 when Jesus was born.

And yet some Christian Islamophobes get worked up about the fact that Aisha was likely somewhere in the range of 9-13 when she married Mohammed, and most likely in the range of 13-16 when the marriage was consummated - acknowledging that, as with Mary, this is all a matter of educated guesswork rather than hard fact.

Though of course Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, whereas Aisha was merely impregnated by Mohammed's semen; so that makes all the difference, obvs.

Apologies to both my fellow Christians and any Muslims passing through the thread for being slightly facetious about this, and I fully appreciate that no one in this thread even raised the point; but the unwillingness to consider the cultural context over child marriage in the Eastern Mediterranean in the relevant periods, and occasional Christian hypocrisy over this point, is the source of some ongoing irritation.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Historically the age in which a person could get married was when they started puberty but often this was delayed for a number of years, especially for non-aristocratic marriages. For example, female Romans could legally get married at the age of 12 but often they wouldn't get married until their mid to late teens and a little bit beyond that for the lower classes. Even in post-Babylonian Exile Judaism, 14 was considered the ideal age for marriage, which was generally after many girls had already started puberty, not to mention that the process of getting married could take up to a year, ie they would have been closer to 15 when all is done and they could legally consummate. Generally speaking, aristocratic families would have been the ones closer to that ideal as opposed to non-aristocratic ones.

It gets more confusing considering that in a lot of cases, engagements would be made at 12 (or even before then) but the marriage itself was often delayed until a few years later. Also as I mentioned earlier, the process of getting married in Jewish families back then could take up to a year but from the beginning of being betrothed a couple would be considered a married couple. Given that ~15 (give or take a year) is when a lot of female aristocrats tended to get married in most societies (and whether or not this would be from the start of betrothal for Jewish ones or when it's done I wouldn't know), and Mary was not one, it's more probable that she wasn't younger than 16 when Jesus was born.

And yet some Christian Islamophobes get worked up about the fact that Aisha was likely somewhere in the range of 9-13 when she married Mohammed, and most likely in the range of 13-16 when the marriage was consummated - acknowledging that, as with Mary, this is all a matter of educated guesswork rather than hard fact.

Though of course Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, whereas Aisha was merely impregnated by Mohammed's semen; so that makes all the difference, obvs.

Apologies to both my fellow Christians and any Muslims passing through the thread for being slightly facetious about this, and I fully appreciate that no one in this thread even raised the point; but the unwillingness to consider the cultural context over child marriage in the Eastern Mediterranean in the relevant periods, and occasional Christian hypocrisy over this point, is the source of some ongoing irritation.

Arch, not saying I agree with the hypocritical views of some Christians, but there is a vast difference between God willing a 13-15 year old to become pregnant and a 40 year old man raping an 9-12 year old girl. Mary's birth being virginal explicitly means no sex was involved whatsoever. Aisha is another story entirely; specifically, a story of statutory rape. The physical act was involved and that makes all the difference in the world.

And yes, I'm aware that historically child marriage and statutory rape were common practices throughout human history up until recently. I'm not excusing or ignoring any of that. It's a disturbing fact, but a fact nonetheless. Yet as far as the Virgin Birth of Christ is concerned, this really isn't relevant. If we were talking about the kids Joseph and Mary had after Jesus was born then it would be relevant but as it stands you're equating oranges to tangerines.

[Celritannia]

Because of sunny's *ahem* more than appropriate feelings towards Mary.

That really has nothing to do with your line of question. Regardless of what age St. Mary was married, it is irrelent to any of Sunds feelings. Even if Sun harbors a romantic ideation towards the Blessed Virgin, she's over 2000 years old at this point so what ever poisoning of the well nonsense you're playing at is expressly that, nonsense.

Things also occurred on a discord server he was apart of.
So there is more to this, but that's all I shall say.

[The Archregimancy]

And yet some Christian Islamophobes get worked up about the fact that Aisha was likely somewhere in the range of 9-13 when she married Mohammed, and most likely in the range of 13-16 when the marriage was consummated - acknowledging that, as with Mary, this is all a matter of educated guesswork rather than hard fact.

Though of course Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, whereas Aisha was merely impregnated by Mohammed's semen; so that makes all the difference, obvs.

Apologies to both my fellow Christians and any Muslims passing through the thread for being slightly facetious about this, and I fully appreciate that no one in this thread even raised the point; but the unwillingness to consider the cultural context over child marriage in the Eastern Mediterranean in the relevant periods, and occasional Christian hypocrisy over this point, is the source of some ongoing irritation.

Arch, not saying I agree with the hypocritical views of some Christians, but there is a vast difference between God willing a 13-15 year old to become pregnant and a 40 year old man raping an 9-12 year old girl. Mary's birth being virginal explicitly means no sex was involved whatsoever. Aisha is another story entirely; specifically, a story of statutory rape. The physical act was involved and that makes all the difference in the world.

And yes, I'm aware that historically child marriage and statutory rape were common practices throughout human history up until recently. I'm not excusing or ignoring any of that. It's a disturbing fact, but a fact nonetheless. Yet as far as the Virgin Birth of Christ is concerned, this really isn't relevant. If we were talking about the kids Joseph and Mary had after Jesus was born then it would be relevant but as it stands you're equating oranges to tangerines.

Better than equating oranges to apples; at least oranges and tangerines are related.

But on reflection I shouldn't have opened this particular can of worms. My apologies to all concerned, and - without intending to evade the topic - I'll acknowledge there were likely better places to raise this particular aspect of comparative religion and sociocultural practice. I'll refrain from continuing the discussion, even while noting that there are some nits I'm dying to pick with Trollzyn's post.

[Sundiata]

That really has nothing to do with your line of question. Regardless of what age St. Mary was married, it is irrelent to any of Sunds feelings. Even if Sun harbors a romantic ideation towards the Blessed Virgin, she's over 2000 years old at this point so what ever poisoning of the well nonsense you're playing at is expressly that, nonsense.

Things also occurred on a discord server he was apart of.
So there is more to this, but that's all I shall say.

This is not the place for whatever personal animosity you may hold towards me.

I don't mind discussing the circumstances surrounding Christ's birth and theologically related matters but please, if we're going to have an honest dialogue with respect to the subject of Christ's birth, at least try to understand my reservations about using the non-canonical texts of the bible to explain events that occurred within the canonical texts of the bible.

[Celritannia]

Arch, not saying I agree with the hypocritical views of some Christians, but there is a vast difference between God willing a 13-15 year old to become pregnant and a 40 year old man raping an 9-12 year old girl. Mary's birth being virginal explicitly means no sex was involved whatsoever. Aisha is another story entirely; specifically, a story of statutory rape. The physical act was involved and that makes all the difference in the world.

And yes, I'm aware that historically child marriage and statutory rape were common practices throughout human history up until recently. I'm not excusing or ignoring any of that. It's a disturbing fact, but a fact nonetheless. Yet as far as the Virgin Birth of Christ is concerned, this really isn't relevant. If we were talking about the kids Joseph and Mary had after Jesus was born then it would be relevant but as it stands you're equating oranges to tangerines.

Better than equating oranges to apples; at least oranges and tangerines are related.

But on reflection I shouldn't have opened this particular can of worms. My apologies to all concerned, and - without intending to evade the topic - I'll acknowledge there were likely better places to raise this particular aspect of comparative religion and sociocultural practice. I'll refrain from continuing the discussion, even while noting that there are some nits I'm dying to pick with Trollzyn's post.

I would be curious to read this, so perhaps another thread? Or the Islamic Discussion Thread?

[Celritannia]

Things also occurred on a discord server he was apart of.
So there is more to this, but that's all I shall say.

This is not the place for whatever personal animosity you may hold towards me.

I don't mind discussing the circumstances surrounding Christ's birth and theologically related matters but please, if we're going to have an honest dialogue with respect to the subject of Christ's birth, at least try to understand my reservations about using the non-canonical texts of the bible to explain events that occurred within the canonical texts of the bible.

And history happens outside of canonical texts too.

[The Archregimancy]

I would be curious to read this, so perhaps another thread? Or the Islamic Discussion Thread?

viewtopic.php?p=37253450#p37253450

[Sundiata]

This is not the place for whatever personal animosity you may hold towards me.

I don't mind discussing the circumstances surrounding Christ's birth and theologically related matters but please, if we're going to have an honest dialogue with respect to the subject of Christ's birth, at least try to understand my reservations about using the non-canonical texts of the bible to explain events that occurred within the canonical texts of the bible.

And history happens outside of canonical texts too.

History holds weight, but the canonical texts of the Bible hold more weight in this respect.

[Celritannia]

And history happens outside of canonical texts too.

History holds weight, but the canonical texts of the Bible hold more weight in this respect.

I don't understand why your so adamant to refuse to accept a common concept of ancient palestine.

[The Archregimancy]

This is not the place for whatever personal animosity you may hold towards me.

I don't mind discussing the circumstances surrounding Christ's birth and theologically related matters but please, if we're going to have an honest dialogue with respect to the subject of Christ's birth, at least try to understand my reservations about using the non-canonical texts of the bible to explain events that occurred within the canonical texts of the bible.

And history happens outside of canonical texts too.

The key difference is that a religious canon is typically accepted as a divinely inspired (or at least divinely approved) set of texts that define a religion's beliefs; the core canon is, in most cases, specifically set and rarely evolves.

A historical canon is an ever-evolving set of texts that define the historiography of a topic, without divine approval.

The two can co-exist - the Bible can be seen as forming the core of the Christian canon as well as forming a key part of the historical evidence for both the early development of Christianity and the development of the ancient Jewish states in Palestine - but they make fundamentally different assumptions. And attempting to argue that the two are necessarily interchangeable can cause issues, even for believers (see Trollzyn's objection to my post above for an excellent example of the latter).