I have no problem with what you said. Aurelius has every right to the traditions of his church as I do. And he has the right to interpret scriptures based on those traditions. I am not bound by his traditions and need not interpret the scriptures based on those tradition. Given how language was used in the 17th century, my interpretation of that scripture was a reasonable interpretation. I recognize that Aurelius doesn’t see the interpretation of that text as I do. That’s fine. I simply don’t have to feel threatened because his interpretation differs from mine. Nor should he feel threatened because my interpretation doesn’t agree with his. I am certainly not trying to prove him wrong. I am simply presenting an alternative interpretation and explaining why I hold that interpretation.

Rich

The young women in the FLDS can no more be held responsible for what happened to them than can Mary. Saying no to what happened in the FLDS was not a practical alternative. Neither was it for Mary. Given those cultural and social forces, the concept of free choice simply doesn’t apply.

As I said my mistake about Mary’s engagement does weaken this point. After all if God doesn’t intervene then Mary gets married and pregnant. So God doesn’t make things worse.

I was right with you until you started talking about God making things worse.

Regarding Aurelius’ points, I think they are well made. There were traditions that gave Mary alternatives. And I think we can overplay the cultural imperialism point.

I know of those traditions and respect them. However, they are not my traditions and my understanding of events are not shaped by those traditions

But the issue is ultimately less about whether she could choose otherwise but rather the kind of deliberations possible given her age and culture.”

This is what I’m trying to say. The deliberations of the young women in the FLDS was, in all likelihood, extremely narrow. They were probably so narrow that effective alternatives simply could not discussed because they did not exist.

This is my problem with free will. Choice is based upon perceived alternative actions. If effective alternative actions are not perceived then our frame of action is very narrowly perceived, even to the point of not having alternatives. In those cases, it is incumbent upon us to seek out and internalize effective alternatives so that in the future we will have more freedom of action.

Rich

As I said my mistake about Mary’s engagement does weaken this point. After all if God doesn’t intervene then Mary gets married and pregnant. So God doesn’t make things worse. And if one is a consequentialist that’s a big deal. If one isn’t a consequentialist or perhaps even if one is a rule utilitarian then this seems to be a problem.

Regarding Aurelius’ points, I think they are well made. There were traditions that gave Mary alternatives. And I think we can overplay the cultural imperialism point. But the issue is ultimately less about whether she could choose otherwise but rather the kind of deliberations possible given her age and culture.

Nevertheless my thinking is not bound by your traditions. With regards to marriage, Mary was engaged prior to the angle giving notice of her that she had been chosen to bear the Messiah. At that time engagement was a lawful state from which one had to file a divorce petition in order to absolved the union. The only reason for engagement was in preparation for solemn marriage. Marriage was the only moral state by which a man and a women may enter into legal sex relations. The social and cultural expectation was that this union would produce a child. So when Mary entered into the engagement she was acknowledging that she would marry Joseph and that children would be produced from that union. This is how her culture taught her and this is how, in all likelihood, she would see it. So from the beginning of the engagement the expectation was that it would lead to marriage and children.

In Elizabethan writing, the definition of of ‘know’ was, among other things. a reference to sexual intercourse. This is in compliance with interpreting Mt 1:25 meaning they did not have sexual intercourse until after Jesus was born. After that time there was no reason not to have other children. There was only one Messiah and that was Jesus. Mary was simply the earthly vessel by which the Messiah was brought into the world.

Interestingly enough, and you can see this in the development of the Catholic church at the end of the empire and beginning of the middle ages, there was a growing split between clergy and laity. As the clergy became a more corporate body it became to be seen that there were things reserved only to the clergy. Approaching the Christ was one of them. In medieval theology, it was the student’s goal to study until he could be one with Christ. That was the goal but it was hardly achievable. The laity was discouraged from approaching the godhead directly. Instead they were directed to approach them indirectly through the intercession of Mary. Approaching the godhead directly was reserved for the clergy.

“As for your (false) dichotomy between accepting and screaming, of course, this is utterly absurd. She could have just declined. There is no need for her to run screaming from the angel.”

Come on Aurelius lighten up. None of that was meant to be taken seriously.

“By your reasoning, since the culture believe it was good for males to marry at 18 (Pirke Aboth 5:12)”

I’m sorry but I don’t find anything in Pirke Aboth (or Avot) 5:12 that mentions marriageable ages for men. This is what I found:

“There are four types of student. One who is quick to understand and quick to forget–his flaw cancels his virtue. One who is slow to understand and slow to forget–his virtue cancels his flaw. One who is quick to understand and slow to forget–his is a good portion. One who is slow to understand and quick to forget–his is a bad portion.”

If you don’t mind I think I will go with Clark’s reference “Age at Marriage and the Household.” Here men married in their late twenties and early thirties. Here is something to think about. According to Jewish custom, in order to qualify to be a rabbi, and Christ was called by that term, the man had to be at least 30 years of age and married. Now I’m not speculating on that at all. but it is interesting.

Rich

You assume that marriage was the plan all along. What reason(s) do you have to believe this? And, even if the marriage did take place, what reason do you have to believe that the marriage was consummated? The only reason seems to be that that is the way things normally happened. But this is no ordinary happening. This is the birth of God into the world and, thus, is utterly unique. And as the Eastern Orthodox see it, there is 2000 years of church history and apostolic succession that testifies to her ever-virginity. Thus, there are plenty of reasons to doubt.

Now, scripturally, you might point to Mt 1:25. But that passage in no way implies that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, just Mt. 28:20 does not imply that Christ will no longer be with the church at the end of the world.

As for your (false) dichotomy between accepting and screaming, of course, this is utterly absurd. She could have just declined. There is no need for her to run screaming from the angel. Now you are correct that the culture she lived in held child birth in high regard. But that does not guarantee her acceptance. Further, there were vows of chastity (2Macc 3:19). Indeed, Paul counseled women to remain in their virgin state if they could, but that it is no sin if they could not (1Cor 7). By your reasoning, since the culture believe it was good for males to marry at 18 (Pirke Aboth 5:12), Jesus must have been married. But, no serious scholar believes so and, even if they did, it would be against the entirety of Church history.

As to Mary’s “free will” the angel told her she would deliver the messiah. She didn’t seem to have any problem with the idea of child birth. Her only question was as to how this would be accomplished since she was a virgin. She was probably raised in a tradition which said the highest glory of a woman was to give birth and keep a righteous household. There is no reason to suppose that this event would be objectionable to her. She could have run out screaming, assuming she could run in the presence of an angle; but why would she? Given the cultural constraints surrounding her thinking process, there is no reason to suppose that she could even take the screaming alternative as it probably would not have occurred to her.

Rich

And I don’t understand why Joseph could not be Mary’s caretaker before the annunciation took place.