Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 16 of 156 (507973)
05-09-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
05-09-2009 9:42 AM


peg writes:
Are you assuming that the Romans did not require married women to be registered along with their husbands? If the census required all 'families' to be registered, then why is it unusual that a man and his wife would go to register as a family?
Whether the wife would have to accompany her husband is irrelevant. The point is why would the Romans create a total logistical nightmare by having people all over the empire go back to their ancestral home simply to register when it would be simpler to just have them register where they are. No the only reason for the enclosure of such nonsense is to attempt to fulfill the prophesy.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 9:42 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 6:16 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 17 of 156 (507979)
05-09-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
05-09-2009 9:42 AM


Peg writes:
Are you assuming that the Romans did not require married women to be registered along with their husbands?
As I stated, Mary's presence was required just as much as Joseph's land was required. I don't know if you realize this, but women being considered anything but property is a modern concept.
Don't take my word for it though, do a google search on "Roman Census" and find out for yourself.
Peg writes:
If the census required all 'families' to be registered, then why is it unusual that a man and his wife would go to register as a family?
No, a census never "required all 'families' to be registered in person. A Roman Census was an opportunity for a Roman citizen to state his status, and what property he possessed. A Roman citizen also had the ability to grant his slave(s) freedom by declaring him a Roman Citizen on the census, rather than as his own property.
Notice that the gender "he" and "his" is specified, in that only a man could be a Citizen, any other person was considered a member of the Citizen's house.
Here is a great article on the stipulations of Roman Citizenship.
Also, since it is not required for Mary to be present for this census that is completely unfounded historically, it would be HIGHLY UNUSUAL for her to travel in her late stage of pregnancy .
Then again, don't take my word for it... look it up yourself.
Peg writes:
This is really far fetched. Her uterus would not have hemorrahaged on such a trip. The journey is said to be 3 days.Thats not really a massive trip.
ROFL! It is an 80 mile journey... are you seriously describing a 26 mile a day journey as a leisurely stroll? That would be 12 hours of constant walking a day for three days.
Also, I would take your medical analysis on whether her uterus would hemorrhage or not more seriously, if you actually had any formal medical education... or could spell hemorrhage correctly.
Peg writes:
It would have been a slow walking pace, which would most likely be a nice smooth ride...like being on a rocking horse.
Unlike you Peg, I have actually walked on the type of roads Mary would have walked on for several hours, and it is painful. It is anything but a "smooth ride" that is "like being on a rocking horse". I can only imagine how seriously painful it would be if I were a woman in her LATE 3rd trimester.
I mean, we are seriously talking about a woman who is in her 34th to 38th week of pregnancy walking on rough roads for 80 miles. Are you seriously telling me this would not be difficult?
Peg writes:
Heavily pregnant women are out plowing fields in some 3rd world countries and they manage quite well.
I know Peg, I have seen pregnant women out in these fields weeding out crops and irrigating. There is a huge difference between this, and walking 80 miles straight on rough roads.
In case you try and ask another silly question like "how do you know they were pregnant with a Burka on?", do I really have to describe what a pregnant woman would look like with a sheet over her?
Peg writes:
At the worst Mary would have been uncomfortable but not in any pain and certainly not in great danger.
Quite a naive assessment if you ask me.
Peg writes:
They first went to the temple in Jerusalem ( 5.5 mile journey ) in obedience to the Mosaic Law, to make an offering of purification. This is a requirement of law at the 40th day. So they were in Bethlehem all that time until they went to Jerusalem.
Do you not think I took that into consideration? Do you think a woman can have fully recovered from her baton death march in 2 months, to make the march again? Seriously Peg, I wonder about you sometimes.
Peg writes:
There is also the incident of herod attempting to kill all infant boys up to the age of 2 which indicates that Herod has some idea of the age of the child born to mary.
Of which there is also no evidence.
I notice that you had no rebuttal to my historical* dates in regard to the timing of the only census that was even remotely close to the supposed date of Jesus birth as well, and the complete lack of an historical evidence for a "Luke style" census having ever occurred at all*. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you threw that out to in favor of whatever your heart desires.
Edited by Michamus, : typos
Edited by Michamus, : to err is human (typos)
Edited by Michamus, : inserted * to *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 9:42 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 7:07 AM Michamus has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 156 (508044)
05-10-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
05-09-2009 9:56 AM


Huntard writes:
An incident, by the way, for which there is absolutely no evidence of it ever having happened.
Herod was a pretty ruthless character...some of his other recorded atrocities show what he was capable of.
but lets just say that the account was a fraud... why would the writer give a specific age of the baby boys who Herod wanted killed? Why not just say 'and Herod sent to have all the baby boys killed'
There are too many specific details in the account to conclude that it was a false account. You have to remember that these gospels were being circulated to the jews themselves to prove jesus Messiahship. Any untruths would have quickly been identified by the authorities and squashed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2009 9:56 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2009 9:47 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 99 by deerbreh, posted 05-26-2009 11:57 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 156 (508046)
05-10-2009 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluescat48
05-09-2009 9:56 AM


bluescat writes:
The point is why would the Romans create a total logistical nightmare by having people all over the empire go back to their ancestral home simply to register when it would be simpler to just have them register where they are.
i have no idea on that
but surely if each city had a registration office, it would make sense to require the inhabitants of the city to come in to register at the correct office rather then anyone registering at any office.
who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluescat48, posted 05-09-2009 9:56 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 20 of 156 (508051)
05-10-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Michamus
05-09-2009 11:08 AM


Michamus writes:
Also, since it is not required for Mary to be present for this census that is completely unfounded historically, it would be HIGHLY UNUSUAL for her to travel in her late stage of pregnancy .
She may not have been required to go but if i was heavily pregnant and my husband was required to go away for a length of time, i think i would want to go along too. I doubt she would want to stay behind knowing that he would miss the birth.
Its probably as simple as that.
Michamus writes:
ROFL! It is an 80 mile journey... are you seriously describing a 26 mile a day journey as a leisurely stroll? That would be 12 hours of constant walking a day for three days.
and that was quite normal in those days...thats how people got around. They were used to it.
Michamus writes:
Unlike you Peg, I have actually walked on the type of roads Mary would have walked on for several hours, and it is painful. It is anything but a "smooth ride" that is "like being on a rocking horse". I can only imagine how seriously painful it would be if I were a woman in her LATE 3rd trimester.
I mean, we are seriously talking about a woman who is in her 34th to 38th week of pregnancy walking on rough roads for 80 miles. Are you seriously telling me this would not be difficult?
Mary didnt walk, she was carried on a donkey.
Michamus writes:
Quite a naive assessment if you ask me.
not naive, i've had 3 pregnancies myself
Michamus writes:
I notice that you had no rebuttal to my historical* dates in regard to the timing of the only census that was even remotely close to the supposed date of Jesus birth as well, and the complete lack of an historical evidence for a "Luke style" census having ever occurred at all*. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you threw that out to in favor of whatever your heart desires.
I didnt give a rebuttal earlier but if you want some additional information im happy to provide it.
You said
quote:
There were three censuses during the reign of Caesar Augustus 28 BC, 8 BC, and 14 AD. Quirinius did not take up Governorship until 6-7AD.
The fact is that Quirinius came to rule 2 times as governor.
You may have heard of the Lapis Tiburinus inscription which was found in Rome in 1764. It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for 'the second time.' This find has led many historians to acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the BCE period.
They agree that the timing was about 3-2BCE. Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated "governor" is he.ge.mon'. Its a Greek term used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a 'leader' or 'high executive officer.' Some suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the 'first registration' Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers. This also helps to understabd Josephus's reference to a dual rulership of Syria. He speaks of two people, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as 'governors of Syria.' So its possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done) or with Varus prior to Herod’s death (which likely occurred in 1BCE).
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge presents this view: "Quirinius stood in exactly the same relation to Varus, the governor of Syria, as at a later time Vespasian did to Mucianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine while Mucianus was governor of Syria; and Vespasian was legatus Augusti, holding precisely the same title and technical rank as Mucianus."
Luke's account has been proved accurate in reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus birth. The historical evidence backs him up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Michamus, posted 05-09-2009 11:08 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2009 9:43 AM Peg has replied
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 05-10-2009 10:15 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 24 by Michamus, posted 05-10-2009 1:59 PM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 21 of 156 (508058)
05-10-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
05-10-2009 7:07 AM


Peg writes:
Herod’s death (which likely occurred in 1 BCE).
IAW one of your seemingly favorite historians,
Wiki writes:
Josephus wrote that Herod died after a lunar eclipse,and a partial eclipse[20] took place in 4 BC. It has been suggested that 5 BC might be a more likely date — there were two total eclipses in that year. However, the 4 B.C. date is almost universally accepted.
So where do you come up with 1BCE?
Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 7:07 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 05-11-2009 3:09 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 22 of 156 (508059)
05-10-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
05-10-2009 5:45 AM


Writing
quote:
but lets just say that the account was a fraud... why would the writer give a specific age of the baby boys who Herod wanted killed? Why not just say 'and Herod sent to have all the baby boys killed'
There are too many specific details in the account to conclude that it was a false account. You have to remember that these gospels were being circulated to the jews themselves to prove jesus Messiahship. Any untruths would have quickly been identified by the authorities and squashed.
What authorities are you talking about? Do you understand the turmoil that was going on at the time Mark was supposedly written?
History of Christianity in Rome
During the first century, Roman authorities used the Christians who resided in their city as political scapegoats. Christians received the blame, and punishment, for everything from plagues and economic inflation to hostile invasions by barbarians. Under the Emperor Nero, the public execution of Christians became "sports" events in which the early believers were torched, fastened to crosses and torn to pieces by dogs. ...
After facing nearly three centuries of hostility by Roman emperors, the persecution and martyrdom of Christians in Rome ended with the reforms of the Emperor Constantine (r. 306-337). Constantine was responsible for legalizing Christianity throughout the Roman empire. Constantine became a patron and protector of the church.
The author of Luke mentioned the skeptics. The word for refused to believe is Apeitheo and the meaning in Strong’s Concordance is: 1. not to allow one’s self to be persuaded and 2. not to comply with.
Acts 14:
at Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.
Also found Acts 19:9 But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. ..
There were Jews who didn't buy what Paul was selling and they did speak out. Remember the Gospels and the Book of Acts were all written after the Jewish War. You might also check out this thread: Was Christianity Exposed?
We can't read the Gospels the way we read biographies today.
The Gospels Are Not Biographies
The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about. L. Michael White
As I've said many time before the authors of the Bible have a purpose for their writings specific to their audience.
What makes you think these gospels were being circulated through the Jews? The writer's weren't Jews. They were Greeks. The Gospel of Mark is the earliest and apparently written in Rome.
It is now fairly settled that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the gospels and did not develop out of an earlier stage as a Primitive Mark, as once supposed. Its place of composition was certainly Rome.[1] It must have been written after the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70; compare 13:14-20:
"As soon as you see the dreadful desecration standing where he has no right to stand" (the reader must take note of this), "then those who are in Judea must fly to the hills; a man on the roof of his house must not go down or go into the house to get anything out of it, and a man in the field must not turn back to get his coat. .... There will be such misery in those days as there has never been since the beginning of God's creation until now, and never will be again."
After the destruction of the Temple in the Jewish War, Christianity was cast out of Judaism.
So the author of Matthew is inspired by the birth story of Moses and uses that slaughter imagery for his birth story of Jesus. Mark didn't have a birth story, so the author of Matthew and Luke were on their own.
The slaughter and the census are facts that can be checked. Josephus didn't mention the slaughter and he delighted in listing all of Herod's atrocities and the census can be checked and has been checked. Since these supposed facts aren't literally true, then the reader has to understand what point the writer was trying to make to his audience.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 5:45 AM Peg has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 23 of 156 (508063)
05-10-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
05-10-2009 7:07 AM


quote:
She may not have been required to go but if i was heavily pregnant and my husband was required to go away for a length of time, i think i would want to go along too. I doubt she would want to stay behind knowing that he would miss the birth.
Its probably as simple as that.
If you've actually had three pregnancies then you should know better.
Even today, three days of driving or riding in a car is uncomfortable in the last months. Unless I absolutely had to, I wouldn't go on such a trip with my husband so close to my due date. I wouldn't want to have a baby in a strange hospital. In those days they had a midwife.
Remember marriages were arranged and the couple didn't necessarily have this need to be together. They were probably more strangers than not. These two also hadn't consummated the marriage yet.
quote:
and that was quite normal in those days...thats how people got around. They were used to it.
We are used to daily driving also, but a three day trip of consistent driving is harder on us than daily driving.
quote:
Mary didnt walk, she was carried on a donkey.
Then the argument that she is used to walking is irrelevant. Was she used to riding a donkey for long periods of time? Probably not. They aren't comfy.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 7:07 AM Peg has not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 24 of 156 (508088)
05-10-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
05-10-2009 7:07 AM


Peg writes:
They agree that the timing was about 3-2BCE. Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated "governor" is he.ge.mon'. Its a Greek term used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a 'leader' or 'high executive officer.' Some suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the 'first registration' Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers.
ROFL! So when the author of Luke wrote Governor, what he really meant was something other than governor? The logical gymnastics keep coming!
Peg writes:
This also helps to understabd Josephus's reference to a dual rulership of Syria. He speaks of two people, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as 'governors of Syria.' So its possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done) or with Varus prior to Herods death (which likely occurred in 1BCE).
Judging by the fact that you didn't even get Herod's date of death correct... I am highly skeptical of everything you just stated without references.
Peg writes:
Luke's account has been proved accurate in reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus birth. The historical evidence backs him up.
Luke's account has required gymnastics in both logic, and evidence. This is so that the moderately to poorly educated christian can believe the book to be accurate in reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus birth.
There, fixed that line for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 7:07 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Asteragros, posted 05-12-2009 12:59 PM Michamus has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 156 (508165)
05-11-2009 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by bluescat48
05-10-2009 9:43 AM


That date of 4bc is accepted but it doesnt mean its correct.
Herod the Great - Wikipedia
quote:
Josephus wrote that Herod died after a lunar eclipse,[19] and a partial eclipse[20] took place in 4 BC. It has been suggested that 5 BC might be a more likely date[21] — there were two total eclipses in that year
While Josephus did write that herod died during an eclipse it doesnt mean it was the eclipse of 4bc. It could have been an eclipse which happened in 1bc. Researchers in the 1980's discovered that there was an eclipse at that earlier date.
John Mosley of Los Angeles’ Griffith Observatory officially went on record as saying that the lunar eclipse mentioned by Josephus may not have been the eclipse of 4BC.
Its also accepted that Josephus’ statement that Herod died 37 years after being made king by the Romans is correct. But they calculate it based on the time the roman senate actually gave their consent for the capture of the city and not the actual date of the capture.
Its easily calculated because Herod did not capture Jerusalem and begin his reign as king until the summer of 38BCE.
Its makes sense to calculate it based on the date of the capture because from the perspective of the inhabitants, they would not have known Herod as king until the capture...they would not have known anything of Rome giving their consent 3 years earlier.
Obviously Josephus dated Herod’s reign from when he actually began ruling as king, which would make his death 37 years later as 1BCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2009 9:43 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2009 5:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 26 of 156 (508175)
05-11-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
05-11-2009 3:09 AM


It could have been 5BCE, 4BCE, 1BCE. That is the problem with proving this. When was the census? When was Quirinus Governor? The dates are all speculative. Plus the fact that these were written down years later and not by anyone who was there. Without information to confirm this it can be said that, one cannot be sure of when anything happened.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 05-11-2009 3:09 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 27 of 156 (508212)
05-11-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Michamus
05-08-2009 1:51 PM


Are you serious? How about my credibility as a medical professional? How about the fact that woman slipping and falling 2 feet (distance from hips to ground) can cause fetal demise? That's not even taking into consideration the amount of jostling she would experience on an 80 mile journey. This would take 2 weeks of horseback travel.
Even if fetal demise did not occur, it is almost certain horseback riding would certainly induce labor*.
*Riding horses during pregnancy
If you really want/need references stating that horseback riding is not recommended while pregnant:
Can I go horse riding while I’m pregnant?
Horse Riding During Pregnancy
Of course, a simple google search would have yielded similar results.
Sounds like you are making an appeal to authority. It's also your responsibility to justify your claims, not mine to justify them for you.
What you supply is good evidence though. It's not completely convincing as we know nothing about how Mary made the journey, but I agree it is a serious factor. One thing to consider is that the audience for this would have been well aware about travel conditions - would they have bought the story of a very pregnant woman taking this kind of journey?
More important I think is the point about censuses - I agree this sounds like a device by which Joseph and Mary could be placed in Bethlehem. So I'm fundamentally with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Michamus, posted 05-08-2009 1:51 PM Michamus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2009 11:28 PM Peepul has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 28 of 156 (508276)
05-11-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peepul
05-11-2009 12:30 PM


in response to your statement to Michamus
peepul writes:
It's also your responsibility to justify your claims, not mine to justify them for you.
I feel that he has. His statement
Of course, a simple google search would have yielded similar results
was simply showing that it doesn't take any excess knowledge to get an answer.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peepul, posted 05-11-2009 12:30 PM Peepul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 156 (508302)
05-12-2009 8:51 AM


Concerning the possibility of a pregnant Mary traveling long distances when just before term, while perhaps arguable it doesn't seem a particularly strong argument to me. What percentage of woman could make such a journey? I have a feeling the answer is not 0%. The historical arguments seem much stronger.
Just my opinion...
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 05-12-2009 10:32 AM Percy has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 156 (508305)
05-12-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
05-12-2009 8:51 AM


quote:
The historical arguments seem much stronger.
What historical arguments? Arguments for pregnant women traveling? Or historical arguments for Mary in particular?
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say in your post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 8:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 11:28 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024