Marian Dogma Refutes Muslim and Secular Critics of the Virgin Birth
The Counsel of Trent, 22 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aklPXqeWp88
0:06 I wonder, will any place in the video show a Muslim quote actually denying the Perpetual Virginity?
Teen pregnancy is both a descriptive term and a loaded term.
Descriptively, it means a pregnancy occurring in the teens.
Loadedly, it means a pregnancy occurring in the teens because of fornication, because one girl in her teens and possibly the male also in his teens, found no opportunity for getting sex inside marriage.
The latter is obviously very heretical and blasphemous to state about the Blessed Virgin, or of Our Lord, but the former isn't.
- Shaun Steele
- the word "teen" itself is a fairly modern term. Historically, people didn't think of human development like we do. There was childhood, and then there was adulthood (somewhere around the age of 13). There was no transitionary "teenage" period like we think of today.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Shaun Steele I used "teen" as referring to the human years that end in -teen : thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen.
But you made my point, as adulthood was around puberty, at least in relation to marriage, de facto teens in the mathematical and chronological sense, were pregnant.
2:56 Please note, in the pre-1917 code, the minima were 14 for the male partner and 12 for the female one.
- YoungBabyTate
- It's important to remember that this canon would be disciplinary and can be fallible. The important teaching is that the parties are capable of free consent. As we progress, we learn more and more about which ages people can/can't give consent at.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @YoungBabyTate I think you have just put yourself into conflict with Syllabus Errorum, perhaps even Vatican Council.
A canon is in and of itself not an infallible teaching, but it is a very good hint about such. A canon that has stood for centuries and been widely applied, cannot be an incentive for what is de facto mortal sin, like de facto forcing non-consenting brides.
And, yes, the canon was widely applied, even down to the actual minima. Not as in 12 being median age of marriage of a girl, the minimum will normally not be the median, nor as in it being more than half the cases, then it would unusually enough coincide with the median, but when I take nobility marriages as samples, for instance in the ancestry of Lewis XVI, I find 1 / 15 women married at 12, one or two at 14, five at 15, that's a full third just that year of age, one or two at 16.
If a girl married at 12 is raped, the Church encouraged rape on large scale.
If the Church did not encourage rape at all, then a girl married at 12 by saying herself yes and people being sufficiently sure she's not unduly pressured = married, not raped.
What you say about us understanding consent better now is at odds with Christ giving the Apostles the fulness of the Holy Spirit, so they were able to teach correctly on all matters doctrinal and moral, the latter ones obviously involving what constitutes valid consent to marriage.
Dei Filius, IV De Fide et Ratione, canon 3.
3. Si quis dixerit, fieri posse, ut dogmatibus ab Ecclesia propositis, aliquando secundum progressum scientiae sensus tribuendus sit alius ab eo, quem intellexit et intelligit Ecclesia; anathema sit.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Correcting my stats, the 5 married at 15 involved 4 men.
Females married by before 16, both Marie Antoinette and Lewis XVI, and both physical ancestry and other brides of male ancestry or things like that, 38 women, 1 married at 12 = 2.632 %, and overall between 15 and 19 % married before 16.
- Aaron Mueller
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl When a state sets a minimum speed limit on the highway, they are not encouraging people to drive that slowly. Similarly, when the church puts a minimum age for marriage, it does not mean that are encouraging younger marriage. If they were trying to do that, they wouldn't have an age limit at all.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Aaron Mueller The traditional limits set by the Church, from before St. Thomas Aquinas to 1917 are 14 / 12.
There are gynaecological benefits for a woman to marry early.
As men have longer fertile periods than women, and many women slow down sexual activity at the climacterium, there is a trade off for a man, either to marry young, a contemporary, who will stop wanting sex before he does, or marry late, someone younger, after enduring celibacy for a long time before that - meaning of course involuntary celibacy due to lack of partner or resources, not the voluntary one of monks, friars, or men like St. Benedict Joseph Labre.
3:25 I am sorry, but did I hear "in the best interest"?
This is a phrase which is very good to consider for actual physical parents, whom God placed over their own children, "honour THY father and THY mother" ...
It is a lot less good to consider when it comes to someone else's children. Like CPS are at least in Sweden and Norway ill reputed for destroying families, and in Norway for having a bias against Christian ones (outside the Lutheran very liberal "Church").
It is a kind of slave hunt when it comes to people who no longer are children, as is at least in the marital respect, as St. Thomas defended it, not the case with teens.
If you are yourself in the habit of using the phrase, don't do so any more. If you have a priest who does, ditch him as not a Catholic!
3:33 "Even the Church will not marry people for a shotgun wedding or because someone got pregnant"
She certainly did in Renaissance Spain, otherwise there would have been no point in executing the noble who had deflowered the mayors or Alcalde's daughter in Zalamea.
I think St. Thomas also defends making someone pregnant as one of the obligations one can have to marry her (apart from solemn verbal promise in words "de futuro").
What you say, if true, is an argument against your Church being the Catholic Church.
If this is not so, please explain.
- Lydia Bergeron
- The point about the shotgun wedding refers to men and women who marry unwillingly because of pressure due to the woman becoming pregnant - either pressure from the man or from one or both of their families. It’s possible for a wedding of a man and a woman who becomes pregnant, but only if it’s them consenting to the marriage of their own free will. A lot of what we call “shotgun weddings” are forced or pressured into it by family or loved ones, so not freely chosen therefore likely invalid. (Just addressing the specific quote there, not the Aquinas reference, I’m not familiar with that)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lydia Bergeron I would say, family pressure is in fact not invalidating the freedom of consent.
It would need to be very intense before it did that.
Most of the weddings one would call shot gun weddings today are in fact not involving any shot gun, since that intense family pressure would not just invalidate consent, but actually be punishable by US courts of law too. So, mostly, it's on the level of "hey, you really should" - which leaves someone free to disagree, and does not viciate the free consent.
3:44 Getting married for a pregnancy is not free from obligation, but it is free from actual force.
Hence, your Church is not recognising the traditional limits on human freedom.
5:34 a menarche at 14 is actually rather late.
90 of women have their menarche between 11th and 14th birthday (5 % down to 9 and 5 % up to 18, outside this), and the medium is a few months above twelve.
Old canon law, 12 as at least roughly half of the females have bled (and one wants to set the limit on a birthday).
New canon law, 14 as 95 % of them have bled.
Each of this is true for the male as well, add two years to anything, except the outer limits of 9 and 18.
- @alonso19989
- The limit was not based on menarche, but on the age of reason. As knowledge on the subject evolves, so does the number.
It's also a teaching of the Church, not dogma, which is why it could be changed at all!
Please learn your own religion.
- @hglundahl
- @alonso19989 The age of reason, sir, is SEVEN.
Case in point. An older sister (perhaps 8 or 9) at her brother's seventh birthday: "congratulations, you can now go to Hell"
Obviously NOT a marriageable age.
Whether you are a Catholic or not, you are not in a position to correct me about Catholicism.
If you believe 12 or 14 is just barely the age of reason, you are also a menace to liberty.
@alonso19989 "As knowledge on the subject evolves, so does the number."
The problem is, knowledge cannot evolve over and above that accessible to the Apostles in matters which are relevant for pastoral, which age of consent obviously is.
Can't find the reference in the Summa right now, but it is there. I made extensive reading back in 1996 - 1998, and again some in 2000 - 2004.
In matters that aren't, yes, it can evolve.
- Alonso B
- @hglundahl That's not how the Church works.
We have dogma and the teachings of the Apostles and, indeed, it is well known and unchangeable from this that one needs to reach the age of reason, because it requires a free will and absolute consent
When does a person reach the mental faculties for a free and informed consent was often left for every community to decide, under the guidance of their bishop. Confirmation age here (Archbishopric of Lima) is 16, marriage also 16, but it is higher in other places. Some have it lower.
A Church wide minimum is not dogmatic. It's Church teaching, it's canon, yes, and it must certainly be abided by all Catholic clerics BUT it's not unchangeable. If anything, the anomaly is having a Church wide minimum!!
The only truly unchangeable in the Church is the depositum fidei.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @alonso19989 "it is well known and unchangeable from this that one needs to reach the age of reason, because it requires a free will and absolute consent"
Free will, certainly. I am absolutely less positive about "absolute" consent. Sounds like modernese for "if there is some tiny scrap of doubt on the consent being freely meditated, it's not consent" which would make lots of lovematches impossible for marriage as long as being in love lasted.
"When does a person reach the mental faculties for a free and informed consent was often left for every community to decide, under the guidance of their bishop."
I don't think it is all that frequent.
"Confirmation age here (Archbishopric of Lima) is 16, marriage also 16, but it is higher in other places. Some have it lower."
Up to at least 1917, it was world wide (at least Latin rite) marriage 14 / 12, which was also the civil law in Spain, and arguably also in Papal States while they lasted, up to 1870.
"It's Church teaching, it's canon, yes, and it must certainly be abided by all Catholic clerics BUT it's not unchangeable."
I was not saying it was. An argument for the new canon law in 1917 (or while that code lasted, resumed in 1983) changing it to 16 / 14 means c. 95 % puberty rather than c. 50 % puberty, and that is a precaution in a more chaotic world, where young marriages are under attack. In Italy, Alessandro Serenelli and Maria Goretti could only have married before she was 18 if she had been pregnant - sth she obviously refused and is a canonised saint for refusing.
What I am saying is this:- the ideas we have need to be compatible with Church law
- and especially with Church law over centuries.
We cannot afford to have an idea, the consequence of which is, "the 14 / 12 limit facilitated what amounts to rape, even if they were too ignorant to realise that" - that is a proposition which must be condemned. Firmly.
And that's exactly what I am doing.
Check out the limits in Lima for before the Peruvian independence, while Peru was under Spain! Please do!
6:13 Here is the distinction.
Islam has any puberty, at least any normal and according to this scholar even precocious.
Catholic Christianity traditionally has medium age of puberty, or by now, since 1917 (or so?) an age of near total "puberty coverage."
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- Not really. Under Islamic law codes, marriage can happen at any age, even whith an infant. Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe This means, Islam has puberty for consummation.
At least some degree of puberty and in - let's say more humane - schools, puberty.
As to the marriage contract being prior to this, well, there were times when Medieval royalty called child betrothals marriages, but obviously waited to later with consummation and actual sacrament of marriage.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it means marriage can be consummated, even before "puberty", as long as the female can bear the penetration with out injury.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe If taken literally, unfortunately yes.
I spoke about humane schools.
@Tar-Elenion Maranwe Btw, why quotation marks around puberty?
9 years old is a very early, but not precocious, puberty.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl It is permissible in the 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali); and the Imamiya.
What "humane schools" did you have in mind?
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Because I'm quoting your use of the word.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe My usage is about the medical fact.
Near 100 % of puberties occurring are between 9 and 18.
90 % of them are however between 11 and 14 for girls and between 13 and 16 for boys. 5 % go out on each side, either down to 9 or up to 18.
@Tar-Elenion Maranwe First, when no harm is to be feared is not too far from natural puberty if it is early, second, I believe you have studied this, but have you considered each of the schools could have a humane "wing" to it?
Just asking.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
Is that a:
you can't name any "humane schools"?
@Hans-Georg Lundahl And that changes absolutely nothing about Islamic law codes permitting marriage at any age, even with an infant. While consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe It seems, all of your named schools have Arabic names.
Semites in general have early puberty.
Now, all you have said changes nothing about the fact that I am slightly less critical than Islam than you, I would not endorse consummation of marriage at 9 even if (as can happen) puberty had occurred, and I refuse to make the "18" rule, getting to the upper extreme of natural puberty get a free pass, just because Muslims tend to get to close to the "9" rule, the lower extreme.
I have a preference for the 14 / 12 rule, when c. 50 % of boys / girls are in puberty, and an understanding of the 16 / 14 rule, when it's 95 % of each sex.
What humane school of today's secularists would deny the 18 / 18 rule as "reasonable" legislation?
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Does that mean you can't name any of these "more humane" schools, that you introduced?
As for the reset of your post, it seems utterly irrelevant to what I have said. I'm also not sure why I should take your assertion as anything factual.
What you refuse or prefer is also of no relevance.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe If you are this dismissive, why did you chose to interact with me at all?
What I have said about puberty (measured in menarche and first ejaculation, depending on sex) is from a natural science or medical journal, which I found in a library in Sweden back in 2001 or sth.
If you are interested in that topic, which is perhaps relevant for your condemning tone on Islam, and your total lack of condemnation of the modern Occident, how about checking with a gynaecologist, and not a psychologist?
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Does that mean you can't name any of these "more humane" schools, that you introduced?
What you have said about puberty is irrelevant.
I provided correct information about Islamic law on the issue. Your digressions have no relevance to the facts I presented.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe How humane or otherwise Islamic law is depends on when puberty is.
It is absolutely no digression at all.
If you are under the delusion that puberty is "around 15" as if there were no leeway between 9 and 18, you will incorrectly conclude that a girl of 9 is automatically pre-puberal.
As for what I can name, I consulted one Islamic institution connected to Sheikh Imran Hossein, will see if they reply.
Our debate is on a blog post I sent them the link to. I suppose you found my initial comment by that blog post, but just in case this is not so, it's the second highest up on "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere."
Apart from that it is loutish to presume the angle you chose is the only relevant one for any and every purpose.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl You introduced "humane" in 'humane schools'. I'm using your words.
I don't recall saying anything about "digression. I said the rest of your, at this point nonsense, has nothing to do with what I stated.
I have not made any statements about the "age of puberty". So your preference is irrelevant to what I stated.
I did not even introduce "schools". You did.
I have no clue what you are talking about with "Sheikh Imran Hossein", and I did not ask about any "Islamic institution". I asked what "schools" you were referring to. Not "institutions".
Do you even know what "schools" means in an Islamic context when talking about Islamic law and jurisprudence?
What debate are you on about? Blog post? Where do you think this is? This is the comment section of a youtube video? I found your "initial comment" there while listening to the video. This not some blog post.
The "angle I chose", is the only one relevant to me. I'm attempting to point out that anything you respond to me with, that does not respond directly and on point to exactly what I stated is irrelevant.
It is not that difficult to understand.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe "I provided correct information about Islamic law on the issue. Your digressions have no relevance to the facts I presented."
So, you did use the word digression. If you changed it to nonsense since, too bad, I already copy pasted it onto the blog post.
"I have not made any statements about the "age of puberty"."
Implying, you absurdly consider age of puberty irrelevant for the discussion of when one can marry. Your absurdity, not mine.
"I did not even introduce "schools". You did."
Admitted. A guess, and for the Arab speaking world at least you seem to have been acquitted, since you have better knowledge on that than I. Of lying - but not necessarily of absurdity, see what I said about puberty.
"The "angle I chose", is the only one relevant to me."
Fine, we have a divergence on opinion on what is irrelevant or relevant. Your opinion is an absurd one, inhumane another and probably worse way, since it is indirectly pushing for abortions in the case of teen pregnancies.
"What debate are you on about? Blog post? Where do you think this is? This is the comment section of a youtube video?"
On the comment section, you can change what you already stated, even after I answer it. I have copy-pasted the debate to a blog post of mine. Take it as a kind of candid camera. The interaction is not a film. However, it is being filmed. It is being made visible via a film. Our interaction is not a blog post, but I am sharing it on one.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe "anything you respond to me with, that does not respond directly and on point to exactly what I stated is irrelevant. It is not that difficult to understand."
This is a claim of correcting me. Of me answering to you, but you not to me. Of me never correcting you.
It is the claim appropriate to a slave hunter. A bully.
Thank you for telling OUR readers what a jerk you are.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl You are correct. I did say digression. I did not recall that. And was reviewing again when you posted.
The 'implication' is I have no interest in your takes on "puberty" or the "age of puberty". I'm also not interested in your takes on abortion or pregnancy.
I have not given my opinion on on any of those things. Since I have not given (and am not going to give) my opinion on those, your comment that:
>"Your opinion is an absurd one, inhumane another and probably worse way, since it is indirectly pushing for abortions in the case of teen pregnancies."<
...is just ignorant. My opinion on any of those is entirely irrelevant to what I stated: Under Islamic law codes, marriage can happen at any age, even with an infant. Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.
That is just fact. Not my opinion. Here, let me provide a brief quote:
"(2) Ibn Hajar:
“Nikah of a minor age to an adult is allowed, there is consensus of scholars on this, even if she was in cradle, but he should not sleep with her until she can bear it.”
Source: Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari . Vol. 11, Pg. # 347"
Should I take it that your lack of response to my questioning of your knowledge of "schools" to mean that you do not know?
This is not a 'debate'. This was me providing correct information about 'Islamic law', and just that. Followed by you somehow failing to comprehend that, telling me what my statement meant, and deciding continue on about things utterly irrelevant to what I stated, such as Medieval Royalty, Semites, puberty and ejaculation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe I think I already answered that my hunch about divergence in Islamic schools is not the leeast meant to be a statement of definite fact, but of possibility, and I deferred to you.
Now, two things.
1) My initial statement referred to consummated marriage, like Aisha at 9, not to the legal marriage, like Aisha at 6, obviously. Now, I think "until she can bear it" has a tendency to be close to puberty. If I am wrong, tell me medical reasons for that, but as far as I can tell, certain parts need to be able to swell to make intercourse bearable, and this ability comes at or close to puberty.
2) You have been specifically asked with your knowledge of Islamic schools superior to my own, and vastly so, to tell me whether there is an application within one or more of the four schools you mentioned, that actually puts the limit at puberty, i e at menarche, you have not only refused to answer, but you have basically told me it was wrong of me to seek information from an Islamic institution. This is suspicious.
The quote you gave, to the best of my knowledge, would perhaps involve a margin of up to a year before menarche.
Islam is still vastly superior to certain secret societies who actually, even if only in simulation, f**k toddlers, unless all the reports about that are fake. As you mentioned the distinction between legal marriage and consummation, this could perhaps partly exonerate Jewish customs stating a girl could be married by her fathers consent (unless she said no) from 3 years, six months, one day. It would not be consumed. One may hope.
Giving a marriage contract legally binding force when about a child is wrong, but it is a different question than that of the pedophiliac perversion proper, attraction to prepuberal beings.
And if you disagree with what I hope, I'd like more specifics than quotes intended to shock, but which ultimately can be taken in more than one way.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl >"I think I already answered that my hunch about divergence in Islamic schools is not the leeast meant to be a statement of definite fact, but of possibility, and I deferred to you."<
I think I was asking for names of the "humane schools" you referred to.
I'm still waiting for you to directly and clearly state that you can not name any.
>"1) My initial statement referred to consummated marriage, like Aisha at 9, not to the legal marriage, like Aisha at 6, obviously. Now, I think "until she can bear it" has a tendency to be close to puberty. If I am wrong, tell me medical reasons for that, but as far as I can tell, certain parts need to be able to swell to make intercourse bearable, and this ability comes at or close to puberty."<
My initial statement referred to both:
Under Islamic law codes, marriage can happen at any age, even with an infant. Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.
What you "think" is of no relevance to what I stated.
When you attempted to tell me what my statement meant, I corrected you:
No, it means marriage can be consummated, even before "puberty", as long as the female can bear the penetration with out injury.
Note I used the word you chose, as indicated by the quote marks. It is not a word I used.
Again, what you "think" is not relevant to my statement.
>"2) You have been specifically asked with your knowledge of Islamic schools superior to my own, and vastly so, to tell me whether there is an application within one or more of the four schools you mentioned, that actually puts the limit at puberty, i e at menarche, you have not only refused to answer, but you have basically told me it was wrong of me to seek information from an Islamic institution. This is suspicious."<
You have been specifically asked:
Do you even know what "schools" means in an Islamic context when talking about Islamic law and jurisprudence?
Now, I asked that question, which I'm failing to find a direct answer for (a direct answer would be a 'yes, I do' or a 'no, I do not'), in response to you introducing someone named "Sheikh Imran Hossein" and something about Islamic institutions.
I have not, "basically" or otherwise, "told" you it is "wrong" to seek information from an "Islamic institution". What I "told" you is I have no clue what you are talking about and that I did ask about any "Islamic institution".
If I had wanted to tell you it is "wrong", I would have said that.
What is suspicious is your inability to answer a straightforward direct question with a yes or a no.
What is suspicious is your inability to read what I write and respond directly and on point to it, without telling me what you want to think I said, and attempting to change to something else (Occident, condemnation, Jewish, menarche, Medieval, ejaculation, swelling parts, Semites, secularists, pedo... etc).
Are you capable of responding to what I stated without reading what you want into it?
I have specifically stated:
It is permissible in the 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali); and the Imamiya.
and:
Islamic law codes permitting marriage at any age, even with an infant. While consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.
Your "question" was answered. Is it too difficult for you to understand.
>"The quote you gave, to the best of my knowledge, would perhaps involve a margin of up to a year before menarche."<
The quote I gave....:
"(2) Ibn Hajar:“Nikah of a minor age to an adult is allowed, there is consensus of scholars on this, even if she was in cradle, but he should not sleep with her until she can bear it.”
Source: Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari . Vol. 11, Pg. # 347"
...lacks the word you want to read into it.
The rest of what you assert is just a continuation of your ignorant nonsense attempts at reading your desires into what I stated while also trying to shift to things I did not say anything about.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe "Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury"
Would that still be in all respects a child?
That's where the question of puberty is important, while you ignore it.
It would be a child in many cases according to modern legislations, which are highly irrelevant when it comes to moral evaluation of a different legislation.
It would quite probably often not be a child according to the Catholic criterium, historically that being c. medium age of puberty. But it would quite obviously often also be a child. However, as they are not baptised, they are not under canon law.
I cannot name Islamic schools in general, and I cannot name an Islamic school which specifies in so many words what you asked me to specify. But you cannot name one of the four you named that clearly specified that "bear penetration without injury" can be well before puberty either.
You have the expertise I lack on Islamic schools. But your pretty obvious view on what one can reasonably call no longer a child is lacking expertise on when puberty occurs and what puberty changes.
- Here
- I blocked him. Or her. Seems "Maranwe" means "Destiny" in Quenya. Someone this eager to denigrate a person as "ignorant" and as spouting "nonsense" at every turn in a disagreement truly is a jerk, and not what I want to have around. Or tried to block the following came through:
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl >"I cannot name Islamic schools in general, and I cannot name an Islamic school which specifies in so many words what you asked me to specify."<
I asked you to name the "schools" you introduced.
Note: you introduced "more humane - schools", and then when I respond to your inaccurate claim about what I meant with my statement (and just that, I said nothing about 'schools'), you continue with a "I spoke about humane schools". After which I questioned you.
But it turns out you are ignorant of the subject.
It is very "suspicious" that you would make statements about something you don't know about.
Why would you try and do that....
It seems very dishonest.
I even made an attempt to get you to clarify your understanding when I asked if you knew what 'schools' meant in reference to Islamic law and jurisprudence.
The rest of your post is just a continuation of the ignorant irrelevant nonsense you keep harping on about.
As I stated, I'm not giving my opinion about the subject. Nor whatever subject you want to turn to.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe One thing you gave your opinion on.
When one is a child.
|
7:55 Here is a text more trustworthy than the priest or brother or even layman behind that Catholic Encyclopedia:
8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.
Proto-Gospel of James.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
Catholics are divided if it's genuine, Orthodox (and probably most Eastern Rite Catholics) are for it.
- Dave
- I don't see how you can say Catholics are divided on it, we already have the canon.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Dave Catholics and Orthodox are not divided on whether it's in the Bible canon - it isn't.
But on whether it is actually genuine, historical, which is a different question from canonical. Canonical means inerrant.
I went a few lines further on, and found sth which makes me question its historicity, it says Augustus demaded a census in Bethlehem. My reading of the census problem (which some posed as a problem against Gospel veracity) is, Joseph in Galilee would have been under a Roman census if he had agreed to say "I'm of Nazareth" or "of Sepphora" - but by saying "I'm of Bethlehem" he escaped to Judaea, where there was as yet no Roman census at all.
The Proto-Gospel on the other hand suggests there was no such attempt at tax evasion against an occupant - if it's true, my own solution to the census problem is wrong. If my solution is right, the Proto-Gospel as we have it is not by James the Brother of God.
- Tar-Elenion Maranwe
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl As the "Proto-Gospel" is a mid second century+ gospel, it would be rather difficult for James to write it. He was dead.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tar-Elenion Maranwe That's one theory about the authorship.
If it contradicts my solution about the census issue, one way to get around it is that theory.
Another is, the contradiction is seeming, St. Joseph could have had the habit to say with some Jewish humour "oh, you know when Emperor Augustus ordered me to go to Bethlehem for the census" and St. James not being much older than Our Lord could have misunderstood ...
I tend to be very sceptical of those theories otherwise. The ones that seek to contest traditional author assignments. I have seen such attributed to Bible books, pretending to divide both Johannine corpus and Isaias into more than one author.
8:39 In a very true sense, the Blessed Virgin was entrusted to St. Joseph's protection. Yes. And she remained virgin.
But it remains that the legal form of this was marriage:
his wife shall she be.
This would not have been the case if normal marriages were only from later on. And a normal marriage, normally implies sex.
In an older version of Jewish Encyclopaedia or Encyclopaedia Judaica, from before Israel made the legal age 16 for both sexes, it says, up to twelve, a girl may be married by the sole consent of her father, without her own. From twelve and a half, with her own, even without her fathers. Between 12 and 12 and a half, getting married is fairly complicated, easiest case, she can marry on her own if she is an orphan. To each age, add one day before the limit is fulfilled, so, she can marry on her own from from the day after 12 years and 6 months.
Nanterre University Library has made a replacement during the years before the confinement, so last time before the confinement, I could not look this up.
a) the dispositions for before twelve are probably a later deviation, since not parallelled in Christianity
b) but the disposition that 12 or 12 and a half is when she can finally chose a husband totally rings true, it is consistent with pre-1917 Church Law, it is consistent with Roman law of the period and later merging with the Church law, and so on.
9:01 No, I don't. I don't have to concede that.
The cultural norms of 1st C. Israel were the cultural norms of the people of God, and therefore (mostly, except obvious exceptions in OT kashrut) still applicable to Christians.
The cultural norms of early 7th C mid Arabia were the cultural norms of a people which was not the people of God. Even Muslims will concede that Arabians were divided into Jews, Christians and Star worshippers, none of which qualify as Muslims.
9:20 I definitely think a fifty-five year old man could licitly impregnate a 12 year old previous to that virgin - provided they were married.
The mother of St Francis of Sales was born 15 years before himself, roughly, 1552 and 1567, while the father was actually born 1522. Thirty years older, according to Mgr Francis Trochu, La Maman de Saint François de Sales.
10:11 This thing is obviously the reason or one of the reasons, why courtship was supervised by the bride's parents or chaperons so often.
So to avoid undue pressure even being made.
12:00 First of all, God did not explicitly "ask" Mary, though He waited for Her "yes"
Second, desire of reward is not coercion.
Third, I don't think the way you are going adds anything about the dispute with those Muslims - since most girls who married at 12, indeed all but Herself, were not immaculately conceived.
12:54 I think that you have misunderstood what the freedom is, when it comes to those who receive efficient grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment