spamandham

Having always simply assumed that's what the text means, now that I have reread it a couple of times, it does indeed seem a bit awkward - as if the author is going out of his way to imply Mary was still a virgin without actually making such a claim. It would in fact be a good way to word it if the author was trying to emphasize that the conception was holy no matter what, while trying to diminish the importance of a perhaps popular idea that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier.

aupmanyav

Gave it a thought today (in some other forum). It was a virgin birth (embryo in embryo). Must have been fathered by Mary's father in Mary's mother's womb. So Jesus was the son of Heli. Since this is not a normal occurance, Mary explained it to Jesus saying that he was God's son. And Jesus believed it all his life.

premjan

This was the theme in the SF book Darwin's Radio.

aupmanyav

Premjan, it is original thinking, did not know that Amundsen had already been to the pole. You know, my reading is very limited.

premjan

I'm not sure that any girl has ever been born pregnant though there was a case of a girl (Lina Medina) who had a child when she was only 6 or 7 years old (she started menstruating at 8 months). She probably got impregnated through sex (though it is not certain).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Radio

John Kesler

Exactly.

JoeWallack

JW:
I Am in the process of building a complete argument explaining the Matthew 1:23 error here at ErrancyWiki:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:23

The main Source of confusion in the Thread here at II is what was the meaning of the offending word "parthenos" in "Matthew's" time? I keep seeing Skeptics simply state that it had a primary meaning of "virgin". However, the Lexicons indicate that the meaning of the time was equivocal as to "young woman" or "virgin":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...22Parthenos.22

Thus, when "Matthew" saw "parthenos" used in Greek translations of Isaiah 7:14 the word by itself does not force a meaning of "virgin". "Young woman" versus "virgin" meaning must be determined by Context. As the context of Isaiah 7:14 is clearly "young woman" "Matthew" has Ignored the Context and chosen a possible meaning of the word in its range of usage but the incorrect meaning based on the Context.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

stuart shepherd

In my opinion, Matthew fabricated the virgin birth story.
Matthew used Mark's Gospel and expanded on it and fabricated it into a better story.
Examine the following.........
Mark 6:3 (King James Version)
3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

According to Mark, Jesus is the carpenter, and Mary is his mother, and there is no mention of a father.

So let's see how Matthew edited this passage.
Matthew 13:55-57 (King James Version)
55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Here Jesus is the Carpenter's son. By editing this passage Matthew removed the stigma of illegitimacy that was apparent when Mark said Jesus was the son of Mary.

I think that Matthew invented Joseph and the virgin birth.

Stuart Shepherd

spin

As you can imagine we have discussed the birth narratives at length. Seeing there are two, which hold so little in common other than the principal figures and the destination, it would be exceedingly hard to say that one was derived from the other. This means that while you conclude that "Matthew invented Joseph and the virgin birth", these are some of the few facts that Matt shares with Luke on the subject. We can safely elimate the choice that one writer copied from the other (though some scholars want to support such an option), so we are left with two accounts which must have independently hit upon the materials for their birth narratives, if your thought is correct.

However, I disagree with your conclusions. That these two accounts share a small kernel of basic story content yet are so dissimilar suggests that the kernel of ideas was in circulation before the two separate accounts were developed.


spin

dog-on

If the original gospel which became Luke was redacted as part of the Luke/Acts (Mid 2nd century???) Paul subjugation, the catholic redactor/author was probably already familiar with the Matthew story.