[ealgeone]

I would disagree with calling Mary a woman of ill repute in light of the circumstances of how she became pregnant.

Lumping her in with prostitutes not only is a disservice to Mary but completely ignores the context of her pregnancy.

[cuban leaf]

I would disagree with calling Mary a woman of ill repute in light of the circumstances of how she became pregnant.

---

That’s how we see her today. I’m not sure that is how her contemporaries saw it until Jesus was 30 or so.

[cuban leaf]

I would disagree with calling Mary a woman of ill repute in light of the circumstances of how she became pregnant.

---

That’s how we see her today. I’m not sure that is how her contemporaries saw it until Jesus was 30 or so.

[cuban leaf]

I would disagree with calling Mary a woman of ill repute in light of the circumstances of how she became pregnant.

---

That’s how we see her today. I’m not sure that is how her contemporaries saw it until Jesus was 30 or so.

[Gamecock]

Looking back you are correct.

But at the time it was considered to be quite the scandal.

[Svartalfiar]

I would disagree with calling Mary a woman of ill repute in light of the circumstances of how she became pregnant.

Lumping her in with prostitutes not only is a disservice to Mary but completely ignores the context of her pregnancy.

Oh? And what are those circumstances/context? As a Jewish (or a Roman) of the time, all you see is some random chick that got pregnant prior to marriage. And I don't think the explanation was widespread, so you likely wouldn't even know the story. And if you did, why would you believe it? A so-called angel came down and said God was gonna make her pregnant? Why her? Is she just covering the scandal of being pregnant by who knows, and unmarried? If you picked the Roman, you wouldn't even believe their silly Jew religion. Probably look down upon it, and don't care anyway.

So yea, just about everyone would likely see her situation as something of 'ill repute'.