mg01

However, if the Septuagint had used the correct translation, (the author of) Matthew would not have used the passages as a Jesus prophecy and this conversation wouldn't be happening.

brighid

Here is what I believe to be the likely truth of the Virgin Birth story. Mary was a 14 year-old girl who was set to married off to a much older man (still a common practice in many Abrahamic cultures). I can only imagine (having once been a 14 year-old girl) that such a practice (however "normal" it was/is) was rather scary to this "virgin girl". She likely had affection for a boy her own age, likely had sex with him and to avoid being stoned to for losing her virginity outside of marriage, demanded that she was impregnated by her God. (This was also a common claim during that time.)

Mary did not get impregnated by Yaweh. This is a ridiculous claim given modern scientific information and rational thought. It wasn't a ridiculous claim some 2,000 years ago. In fact, it was quite smart of the girl because she would surely have been murdered by her family/church.

Now this Jesus child was raised believing he is of divine birth, but the fact is he was no more divine than you or I. This allowed him the freedom to develop ideas counter to the typical thinking of the time and rebel against the hierarchy of the Church. He firmly believed "God" was his father and in this belief he walked the road of persecution and ultimately execution by the Romans. You could even say he allowed it because he believed his Father would "save" him, miraculously. However, that did not happen upon the cross and hence why Jesus said, "Father why have you forsaken me?" (In our belief there was no God to answer him back.) He died on the Cross and the Resurrection story had to be created to bolster the idea of his divinity, for if Jesus were not born of a virgin, impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and ressurrected how could he be "divine" and a "saviour"?

If one part of the story unravels, rest of it will too.

You are right, God (being infinitely more intelligent than you or I is the claim) certainly SHOULD have (and could have) devised a situation that would not allow for a single thinking being to question His existence. Why didn't He? .... well that is a whole other discussion.

Brighid

Brighid

Half-Life

Boy, it would be very interesting if Isaiah and Daniel wrote the exact year, month, day, and time to the exact second of Hurricane Katrina occuring.

Too bad "God" can't make his prophecies clear as a whistle.

Doddy

Even more likely seeing as Mary's cousin Elisabeth had just had an 'angel assisted' pregnancy.

If we read Luke 1:7, it says Elisabeth was old and barren. But from what we know of biology, old probably meant only mid-thirties and the barrenness could very well have been caused by Zacharias being impotent. So it could very well be that Elisabeth was fooling around with some other guy and managed to get pregnant. Either Elisabeth or Zacharias could have concocted a story about the conception of John the Baptist being assisted by the angel Gabriel, thereby covering up the shame of adultery.

So, Mary obviously had heard of this because she was living with Elisabeth at the time (Luke 1:39-40), why wouldn't she use a similar explanation to cover up her own acts? In fact, maybe cousin Beth (or her husband, Zach) actually told her what to say.

premjan

Don't some people think that rape by a Roman soldier to be likely? And the story was made up to protect her modesty?

stuart shepherd

Let’s take a closer look at the story of Jesus’ virgin birth.
The only two Bible writers to report the virgin birth are Matthew and Luke.

Jesus did not meet Matthew until he was 30 years old; more than 30 years after Jesus’ virgin birth.

Luke 3:23(New American Standard Bible)
23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
Matthew 9:9(King James Version)
9And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness but only a compiler of the events.

Luke 1:1-3(New American Standard Bible)
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;

So neither Matthew nor Luke was an eyewitness of Jesus’ virgin birth but only reported the story of the virgin birth that they received from other sources.

Now the conception of Jesus occurred while Mary was living in Nazareth, a city in Galilee.
Luke 1:26-27, 31(New American Standard Bible)
26Now in the sixth month [6th month of John the Baptist’s gestation] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,
27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

Soon after, Mary went to live with her relative, Elizabeth, and stayed three months in the hill country of Judah.
Luke 1:39(New American Standard Bible)
39Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,

Luke 1:56(New American Standard Bible)
56And Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home.

Now when Mary returned home to Nazareth, three months pregnant, she probably started to “show”, and her fiancé, Joseph, noticed that she was pregnant.
Matthew 1:18-19(New American Standard Bible)
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Now it is obvious that Joseph, Mary’s family, and the neighbors in Nazareth were not aware that Mary had been impregnated by the Holy Spirit and was still a virgin. Had it been known that Mary was still a virgin, Joseph would not have been concerned with disgracing Mary, nor would he have planned to send her away secretly.

Getting back to Matthew and Luke, who could have told them thirty years later that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit while his mother, Mary, was still a virgin?

Could it have been Mary’s family or Mary’s neighbors in Nazareth, where Jesus’ conception took place that told Matthew and Luke thirty years later that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

No! When Mary returned to Nazareth after three months in the hill country of Judah, Joseph noticed Mary’s pregnancy and he planned to send Mary away secretly so that she would not be disgraced before her family, friends, and neighbors. They all were all unaware of Mary’s pending virgin birth.

But what about Joseph? Although he was ignorant of Mary’s virginity, he knew she was pregnant, and he had a dream that put his mind at rest on the matter.
Matthew 1:20(New American Standard Bible)
20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Psychologists might diagnose Joseph’s dream as self deceptive dream or delusion to fulfill his wish that his fiancé was really still a virgin.

So Joseph married Mary even though she was pregnant and he knew that the child in her womb was not his.
Matthew 1:24(New American Standard Bible)
24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

And Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born, so he could never know for sure if Mary was a virgin or not. Once Jesus was born and passed through the birth canal, all evidence of virginity or lack of virginity was destroyed.
Matthew 1:25(New American Standard Bible)
25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Deuteronomy 22:13-17(New American Standard Bible)
13"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her,
14and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,'
15then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.
17and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

When a man has sexual relations with a virgin, her hymen ruptures and bleeds on the garment below and this was kept as proof of her virginity. Because Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus there was absolutely no way to provide the evidence of virginity required by the Law.

So who could have possibly told Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born of a virgin?
Christians usually respond to this question by saying Jesus told them. But Jesus, the man, who walked the earth, only had limited knowledge and could not have known about something that happened before his time on earth.
Matthew 24:36(New American Standard Bible)
36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

So who is left that could possibly tell Matthew and Luke that Mary was a virgin.
The only possible witness is Mary herself.

2 Corinthians 13:1(New American Standard Bible)
1This is the third time I am coming to you EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.

Where are Mary’s witnesses?
Where is the garment required by Law to prove Mary’s virginity?
What proof is there that Jesus was born of a virgin?

How could any reasonable person believe this Christmas Tale?

Stuart Shepherd

ThinkingMan

Correct. Also, if (the author of) Matthew hadn't later edited this gospel, it would still record Jesus as being the son of Joseph. Matthew's case for Jesus being the messiah was that Joseph was of the lineage of David. In order to silence objections that the messiah could not be born out of wedlock, Matthew took pains to point out other women in the messianic family tree who were known for having sex outside marriage. When Matthew's gospel was later edited by someone to include the virgin birth, Matthew's genealogy was not removed and continues to conflict with the Church's position.

Net2004

F Till wrote:

You can't seem to get into your head that "call his name X" in Hebrew was just a way of saying that a person was given X as his name. In French, one does not say, "My name is Pierre"; he says, "Je m'appelle Pierre," which literally means, "I call myself Pierre." An issue you are ignoring is that Isaiah said the child's name would be called Immanuel, which was an idiomatic way of saying that the child would be NAMED Immanuel, so the prophecy could not have been "fulfilled" unless the alleged subject of the fulfillment had been named Immanuel.I have quoted already several passages that show that "call his name thus and so" meant to give "thus and so" as the actual name of the person, but it seems that I will have to use overkill on you.


>Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat >a son:>29 And HE CALLED HIS NAME NOAH, saying, This same shall comfort us >concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which >Yahweh hath cursed. >Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and ABRAM CALLED HIS SON'S >NAME, which Hagar bare, ISHMAEL. >Genesis 19:37 And the firstborn bare a son, AND CALLED HIS NAME MOAB: the >same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.>38 And the younger, she also bare a son, AND CALLED HIS NAME BENAMMI: the >same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. >Genesis 25:25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; >and they CALLED HIS NAME ESAU.>26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's >heel; and HIS NAME WAS CALLED JACOB.... >Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's >daughter, and he became her son. And SHE CALLED HIS NAME MOSES: and she >said, Because I drew him out of the water.

If you keep up your "retrospective" line, I will quote more examples to you. "Call his name" in Hebrew was the way Hebrews said that a specific name was given. Hence, when Isaiah said that the young woman would call the name of her son Immanuel, this meant that the actual name of the son would be Immanuel. He didn't mean that this son would retrospectively come to be considered Immanuel.

OldChurchGuy

You raise a very good point and one that Christians have wrestled with for many centuries.

First, there is the Nicene Creed which goes back to around the 4th century as I recall. The creed came about because there were so many different understandings about the origins of Jesus and who Jesus was. Part of the creed states that Jesus was "born of the Virgin Mary".

It is my understanding the reason this phrase was included in the creed was because there were groups advocating Jesus had a regular biological set of parents (Joseph & Mary). The implication is that believers were worshipping a mere mortal. Worse, this mortal was born out of wedlock.

Once Christianity became an accepted religion in the Eastern Roman Empire under Emporer Constantine the question of the day was, "Just what do Christians believe?"

From this eventually came the collected writings termed the "New Testament". Because two of them (Matthew and Luke) have the virgin birth story and because Christians accept the New Testament as the word of God, there is an implied obligation to accept the virgin birth.

For me it is a minor point. If one believes one is dealing with a God who created the entire known universe, then making a young woman pregnant is no big deal. On the other hand, if one is inclined to accept a regular biological conception then Jesus becomes much more real for some people.

It is one of those beliefs which can neither be proven or disproven.

There is widepsread agreement among many Christians that Matthews reference to a virgin bringing forth a son who will be named Immanuel could be a "forced" interpretation of Isaiah. In other words, Matthew was so intent on showing how Scripture was fulfilled by this particular Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth) that he grabbed all verses he could. In the case of Isaiah, the argument can also be made that the Isaiah passage has a "dual meaning". It was relevant for the time but also a prophecy of things to come.

As with the virgin birth, it is a belief that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Enough rambling,

OldChurchGuy

brighid

I don't doubt it! I can say, that as a woman who became pregnant out of the wedlock (albeit during a time in history where I was not going to be stoned to death) I can absolutely understand why any young girl/woman would want to protect herself from the horribly cruel treatment unwed mothers often must endure. Multiply what I experienced 100 times and with the threat of death it seems like an utterly logical outcome during a time in history veiled in ignorance, superstition and sadistic laws governing the proper conduct and "treatment" of the female gender.

b