Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

[Ben Lomond]

Hello again Tladatsi,

Thank you for your greeting. I treat every day as if it is a Sabbath.

Thank you also for your invitation to join you else where, but right now I have been awake for almost 24 hours, and I am quite tired.

I thoroughly commend the website www.wallsofjericho.info to you and any one else who wishes to have their minds disabused concerning the pagan myth of virgin birth dressed up as "Christianity."

Best wishes until we meet again.

Ben Lomond.

= = = = = = = = = =

[Huguenot]

And, a very young woman as well - maybe 14? 16?

Galatians 4:4 AMP

(Amplified Bible)

But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born subject to [the regulations of] the Law,

[Weboh2]

And, a very young woman as well - maybe 14? 16?

Try 24 at least, and Joseph was maybe 40.

[historic salve]

Try 24 at least, and Joseph was maybe 40.

24? Women were married very young in Palestine at that time. Mary would have been about 14.

[Antony]

Tladatsi, re your post, No 26.


Originally posted by Antony
This seems a rather strange interpretation, because Mary was responding to the angel’s announcement which spoke of a future conception (“you shall conceive”). Was Mary really saying because I am presently a virgin, how can I conceive a child at some future time? Didn’t Mary know about the birds and the bees?

Response by Tladatsi
This true unless it is understood that the conception was to occur in the very immediate future, i.e. that very night. Indeed just a few days later Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth and it is known that is already pregnant.

Question No. 1 to Tladatsi
Mary's question was prompted by what the angel said to her (Lk 1:28-33). The angel spoke of conception as a future event. Tell me, what exactly are the words in Lk 1:28-33 that would have made Mary think conception would take place "that very night"?


Originally posted by Antony
The Catholic position realizes the difficulty with interpreting Mary’s question this way. They overcome it by saying that Mary and Joseph had made a compact that Mary would remain a virgin, and Mary was asking the angel how could she conceive a child when she intended to remain a virgin. If this was true about the compact, then isn’t it rather strange that the meticulous Luke never mentioned it?

Response by Tladatsi
Except that this is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels.

[U]Question No. 2 to Tdalasti[/U]
Could it be said that your claim (that Mary thought conception would take place "that very night") is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels?


Antony

[Huguenot]

Try 24 at least, and Joseph was maybe 40.

Ah, I see you know NOTHING of the culture of that day and time.

[Antony]

Hello Tladatsi,

Re: your reply, Post No. 26.

Originall posted by Antony

This seems a rather strange interpretation, because Mary was responding to the angel’s announcement which spoke of a future conception (“you shall conceive”). Was Mary really saying because I am presently a virgin, how can I conceive a child at some future time? Didn’t Mary know about the birds and the bees?

Reply by Tladatsi

This true unless it is understood that the conception was to occur in the very immediate future, i.e. that very night. Indeed just a few days later Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth and it is known that is already pregnant.

Question No. 1 for Tladatsi

Mary's question was prompted by what the angel said to her (Lk 1:28-33). The angel spoke of conception as a future event. Tell me, what exactly are the words in Lk 1:28-33 that would make Mary think conception would take place "that very night"?

Originally posted by Antony

The Catholic position realizes the difficulty with interpreting Mary’s question this way. They overcome it by saying that Mary and Joseph had made a compact that Mary would remain a virgin, and Mary was asking the angel how could she conceive a child when she intended to remain a virgin. If this was true about the compact, then isn’t it rather strange that the meticulous Luke never mentioned it?

Reply by Tladatsi

Except that this is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels.

Question No. 2 to Tladatsi

Could it be said about your claim (that Mary thought conception would take place "that very night") is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels?

Originally posted by Antony

The angel had just told Mary that she would conceive and bear a son who would sit upon the throne of David. The person to whom she was betrothed was from a line that God had decreed would never sit upon David’s throne. Is it any wonder Mary asked the question she did? “How can this be, since I do not know a man (that could father the child you are talking about)?

Reply by Tladatsi

Except that Joseph is in the text a descendant of David so would have the theoretical right to sit upon that throne. In any event I think the reading that the conception was to occur that very moment solves these problems.

Question No. 3 to Tladatsi

Aren't you aware that God had debarred any of Jeconiah's line from ever sitting upon the throne of David (Jer 22:30), and that Joseph was a descendant of David through Jeconiah (Mt 1:11)?

[Tladatsi]

Well met Antony,

Please read my post #29

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=115766

[Weboh2]

Ah, I see you know NOTHING of the culture of that day and time.

And what do you think you know? A full-grown women of 5 foot 4 inches is on average 24 years of age. Only fully grown women were allowed to marry in Israelite culture. This can be proven using the hebrew word for "wife"/woman. Maybe you shouldn't let Roman Catholic teaching retard your knowledge.

[JB]

Moderated By: JB

Because such a large portion of this thread consists of dialogue involving a certain non-theist, who should not be posting in a theist-only area such as Unorthodox Theology 201, this thread is being moved to General Theistics 101. Please carry on as before.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Antony,

Hello Tladatsi,

Well, since this thread was moved to a more accommodating forum I will respond here.

Question No. 1 for Tladatsi Mary's question was prompted by what the angel said to her (Lk 1:28-33). The angel spoke of conception as a future event. Tell me, what exactly are the words in Lk 1:28-33 that would make Mary think conception would take place "that very night"?

First it is the reading that is both consistent with the text and poses the fewest exegetical problems. Second, just a verse or two later Luke tells us that just a few days later Mary went to visit Elizabeth and Mary was already pregnant. Since Mary not yet married Joseph in the intervening few days, the conception can only have occurred between the night when Gabriel visited and that time. Since she was in the presence of a divine being "that very night", that seems like the most natural interpretation. The two or three subsequent days after the meeting with Gabriel but before her meeting with Elizabeth seem less likely.

Question No. 2 to Tladatsi
Could it be said about your claim (that Mary thought conception would take place "that very night") is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels?

39-41 NLT

A few days later Mary hurried to the hill country of Judea, to the town where Zechariah lived. She entered the house and greeted Elizabeth. At the sound of Mary's greeting, Elizabeth's child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Question No. 3 to TladatsiAren't you aware that God had debarred any of Jeconiah's line from ever sitting upon the throne of David (Jer 22:30), and that Joseph was a descendant of David through Jeconiah (Mt 1:11)?

The problem here is several fold. First, since Joconiah was the last king to sit upon the throne of Judea, it would be expected that any subsequent king would need to be a descendant of his. Moreover, if the Messiah were to be a direct descendant of David, who else but Joconiah could he be descendant from?

A plain text reading of Jeremiah 22:30 can simply be read as his immediate progeny not becoming king of Judea (which does not require any prophecy) and not a ban on the ascension to the throne of any subsequent generation of his descendants. So the authors and audiences of Luke and Matthew may not have seen Jesus being a descendant of Joconiah as problem, assuming they were even aware of the passage.

Aside from text per se, the context of both Matthew and Luke make it clear that the authors are trying to establish Jesus as a descendant of both David and Joconiah to establish Him as the Messiah by birth right. Indeed, what is the point of two long lineages if not to establish Jesus' royalty and claim to the Messiahship?

[Antony]

=Tladatsi;2390324]Hello Antony,



Well, since this thread was moved to a more accommodating forum I will respond here.


First it is the reading that is both consistent with the text and poses the fewest exegetical problems. Second, just a verse or two later Luke tells us that just a few days later Mary went to visit Elizabeth and Mary was already pregnant. Since Mary not yet married Joseph in the intervening few days, the conception can only have occurred between the night when Gabriel visited and that time. Since she was in the presence of a divine being "that very night", that seems like the most natural interpretation. The two or three subsequent days after the meeting with Gabriel but before her meeting with Elizabeth seem less likely.

39-41 NLT

A few days later Mary hurried to the hill country of Judea, to the town where Zechariah lived. She entered the house and greeted Elizabeth. At the sound of Mary's greeting, Elizabeth's child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Hello Tladatsi,

The above is presumably a response to my first two questions in previous post. However, you have not answered the questions at all, so I will repeat them:

1. Exactly what are the (angel’s) words in Lk. 1:28-33 that would make Mary think that conception would take place “that very night”?

2. Could it be your claim (that Mary thought conception would take place "that very night") is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels?

The problem here is several fold. First, since Joconiah was the last king to sit upon the throne of Judea, it would be expected that any subsequent king would need to be a descendant of his. Moreover, if the Messiah were to be a direct descendant of David, who else but Joconiah could he be descendant from?

A plain text reading of Jeremiah 22:30 can simply be read as his immediate progeny not becoming king of Judea (which does not require any prophecy) and not a ban on the ascension to the throne of any subsequent generation of his descendants. So the authors and audiences of Luke and Matthew may not have seen Jesus being a descendant of Joconiah as problem, assuming they were even aware of the passage.

Aside from text per se, the context of both Matthew and Luke make it clear that the authors are trying to establish Jesus as a descendant of both David and Joconiah to establish Him as the Messiah by birth right. Indeed, what is the point of two long lineages if not to establish Jesus' royalty and claim to the Messiahship?

Here is the "plain text" of Jer 22:30 that you refer to, from which fellow members can judge for themselves whether God has debarred Jeconiah's descendants ("seed") from ever sitting on the throne of David. Note the words "no man of his seed" and "ruling anymore in Judah".

30. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

You comment on the genealogies (lineages) in Matthew and Luke, and ask "what is the point of two long lineages if not to establish Jesus' royalty and claim to the Messiahship?"

How the NT puts it is that Jesus “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). This raises a very interesting - in fact, crucial - question about the two genealogies to which you refer.

Which genealogy in the NT provides this link “of the flesh” between Jesus and David?

What do you think, and what are your reasons?

Antony

[Weboh2]

Nowhere do any NT writers proclaim of Jesus “He is the begotten son of God Himself as evidenced by the virgin conception.” Absolutely nowhere in the NT is it recorded where any disciple preached a doctrine remotely like virgin birth. To perceive otherwise is a figment of preconceived ideas.

Uniquely begotten means he was not begotten like the angels or Adam. He was uniquely begotten and so were Adam and Eve. But this has little to do with proof of deitihood which he could not claim to have had as human.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Antony,

Hello Tladatsi,

The above is presumably a response to my first two questions in previous post. However, you have not answered the questions at all, so I will repeat them:

1. Exactly what are the (angel’s) words in Lk. 1:28-33 that would make Mary think that conception would take place “that very night”?

2. Could it be your claim (that Mary thought conception would take place "that very night") is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels?

Well I thought I had but I guess I failed. I will try again.

Let us say that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel on a Monday night. She is told of her impending pregnancy and in response proclaims her surprise since, being well aware of the basics of reproductive biology, she has until that time had no sexual relations with any man. Gabriel assures her that this is the work of God. then in Luke 1:39 we are told that Mary immediately went to visit her now pregnant and aged cousin Elizabeth in Bethlehem. The text makes clear that on that Monday night, her cousin Elizabeth was already six months pregnant as reported by the Angel Gabriel. In Luke 1:56 the text tells that Mary remained with Elizabeth for the subsequent three months until the birth of John. So the amount of time between Mary's learning of her own pregnancy and her meeting her cousin was very short. The Greek text also says that Mary went to visit Elizabeth "in those days", indicating a short amount of time. Both passages re-enforcing the other in indicating a short amount of time.

Let us say Mary reached her cousin's house on Sunday evening, a week to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The author of Luke tells us that at that time Mary was already pregnant. So some time between Monday night and Sunday evening Mary became pregnant. In that time the text does not report her getting married or having any sexual relations with any man. Now the text does not say that Jesus was conceived on that very night but certainly within a short amount of time. However, if we take my entirely arbitrary seven day period between Mary night visit with Gabriel and her meeting her cousin in Bethlehem, which time makes the most sense for her to conceive Jesus, the night she is in the presence of the divine messenger, or some night spent traveling through the dusty country side of Judea? I vote for the night with Gabriel. Either way, she conceived Jesus with a very short amount of time after receiving the message.

Here is the "plain text" of Jer 22:30 that you refer to, from which fellow members can judge for themselves whether God has debarred Jeconiah's descendants ("seed") from ever sitting on the throne of David. Note the words "no man of his seed" and "ruling anymore in Judah".

30. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

OK. The man had no children.

You comment on the genealogies (lineages) in Matthew and Luke, and ask "what is the point of two long lineages if not to establish Jesus' royalty and claim to the Messiahship?"

Yes that is correct.

How the NT puts it is that Jesus “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). This raises a very interesting - in fact, crucial - question about the two genealogies to which you refer.

Which genealogy in the NT provides this link “of the flesh” between Jesus and David?

What do you think, and what are your reasons?

Antony

Both Luke 1 and Matthew 1 provide that link. Now to save time and energy, I do not claim either is consistent with each other, with the Tanakh, or is even historically accurate. I merely state that authors' of Chapters 1 of both Matthew and Luke provided these lineages to prove that Jesus was descendant from David. That is why they wrote those lineages. There presence in the Gospels makes no sense without that motive. Now maybe they did a poor job of it, maybe they only read 2 Kings and not Jeremiah, but that is an entirely different question.

What the authors of Matthew and Luke both wanted to do was establish that Jesus was a rightful heir to David through both Jehoiachin and Joseph and that His mother was a virgin when He was conceived through divine intervention.

[Antony]

Most recent post by Antony

Hello Tladatsi,

The above is presumably a response to my first two questions in previous post. However, you have not answered the questions at all, so I will repeat them:

1. Exactly what are the (angel’s) words in Lk. 1:28-33 that would make Mary think that conception would take place “that very night”?

2. Could it be your claim (that Mary thought conception would take place "that very night") is pure conjecture unsupported by any text in the Gospels?


Response by Tladatsi

Well I thought I had but I guess I failed. I will try again.

Let us say that Mary was visited by the Angel Gabriel on a Monday night. She is told of her impending pregnancy and in response proclaims her surprise since, being well aware of the basics of reproductive biology, she has until that time had no sexual relations with any man. Gabriel assures her that this is the work of God. then in Luke 1:39 we are told that Mary immediately went to visit her now pregnant and aged cousin Elizabeth in Bethlehem. The text makes clear that on that Monday night, her cousin Elizabeth was already six months pregnant as reported by the Angel Gabriel. In Luke 1:56 the text tells that Mary remained with Elizabeth for the subsequent three months until the birth of John. So the amount of time between Mary's learning of her own pregnancy and her meeting her cousin was very short. The Greek text also says that Mary went to visit Elizabeth "in those days", indicating a short amount of time. Both passages re-enforcing the other in indicating a short amount of time.

Let us say Mary reached her cousin's house on Sunday evening, a week to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The author of Luke tells us that at that time Mary was already pregnant. So some time between Monday night and Sunday evening Mary became pregnant. In that time the text does not report her getting married or having any sexual relations with any man. Now the text does not say that Jesus was conceived on that very night but certainly within a short amount of time. However, if we take my entirely arbitrary seven day period between Mary night visit with Gabriel and her meeting her cousin in Bethlehem, which time makes the most sense for her to conceive Jesus, the night she is in the presence of the divine messenger, or some night spent traveling through the dusty country side of Judea? I vote for the night with Gabriel. Either way, she conceived Jesus with a very short amount of time after receiving the message.

Tladatsi,

Twice I have asked you to quote the angel’s words in Lk 1:28-33 that, according to you, would have made Mary think that conception would take place “that very night”.

Twice you have responded by talking about another matter (the timing of conception), whereas the issue at hand was to do with Mary’s response to what the angel had just told her. In your two most recent posts you have used 449 words, quoted a later text and introduced this red herring to avoid answering the question.

Most recent post by Antony

Here is the "plain text" of Jer 22:30 that you refer to, from which fellow members can judge for themselves whether God has debarred Jeconiah's descendants ("seed") from ever sitting on the throne of David. Note the words "no man of his seed" and "ruling anymore in Judah".

30. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.OK. The man had no children.

Response by Tladatsi

OK. The man had no children.

What is meant by “Write this man childless” is self evident from the whole of this verse.

Most recent post by Antony

You comment on the genealogies (lineages) in Matthew and Luke, and ask "what is the point of two long lineages if not to establish Jesus' royalty and claim to the Messiahship?"

Response by Tladatsi

Yes that is correct.


Most recent post by Antony

How the NT puts it is that Jesus “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3). This raises a very interesting - in fact, crucial - question about the two genealogies to which you refer.

Which genealogy in the NT provides this link “of the flesh” between Jesus and David?

What do you think, and what are your reasons?

Response by Tladatsi

Both Luke 1 and Matthew 1 provide that link. Now to save time and energy, I do not claim either is consistent with each other, with the Tanakh, or is even historically accurate. I merely state that authors' of Chapters 1 of both Matthew and Luke provided these lineages to prove that Jesus was descendant from David. That is why they wrote those lineages. There presence in the Gospels makes no sense without that motive. Now maybe they did a poor job of it, maybe they only read 2 Kings and not Jeremiah, but that is an entirely different question.

What the authors of Matthew and Luke both wanted to do was establish that Jesus was a rightful heir to David through both Jehoiachin and Joseph and that His mother was a virgin when He was conceived through divine intervention.

The NT says the link between David and Jesus is “of the flesh” (Rom 1:3, Rev 22:16, etc). Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father and is therefore irrelevant to proving this point. So whose genealogies do you say are recorded in Matthew and Luke, and why these genealogies?