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

[Antony]

This is a revised version of a recent post.

WOULD THE REAL JESUS STAND UP (1)

The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels bears little resemblance to the theological construction known as ‘Jesus Christ’. It is this latter figure that Church adherents have worshiped for almost two thousand years.

This raises the issue of whether these two versions of Jesus are compatible or at odds with each other. In order to address the issue it helps to first fathom what is the essence of each of these. The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is a mortal man involved in real-life situations, while the Jesus of the theologians is God himself who appeared in human form.

After discussing this issue, this post asks what would happen if Jesus was to be present again in a situation analogous to his first appearance. Would Church people recognize Jesus a second time around, or would their image of ‘Jesus Christ’ blind them to Jesus in a real-life situation?


JESUS — THE MAN IN THE GOSPELS

When Jesus lived among his followers, they – like everyone else – believed he was a mortal man, the natural son of Joseph and Mary.

From the start his followers had identified him as the long awaited messiah and the son of Joseph: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” After the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ followers still described him in this vein, “a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.”

From these and other references, it is clear that during Jesus’ lifetime his followers believed he was sent by God, not that he was God. Despite how some would later find in Jesus’ words support for his divinity, the disciples did not draw this conclusion from these same words when they lived side by side with him for an extended period.

Jesus’ preaching was directed at individual behaviour. In this he gave guidance as to how one enters the ‘kingdom of God’.

Jesus also spoke out about establishment hypocrisy and manipulation. This eventually attracted the ire of the religious establishment, and his confrontation with them would put his own character to the test which would require of him to stand unflinchingly by what he preached.

The disciples believed that Jesus was appointed by God, and that he was the long awaited anointed one (messiah). This did not go over well with the religious establishment for Jesus did not meet with their approval, he was not like them. On the other hand, Jesus was stinging in his criticism of this establishment calling them hypocrites who “clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence”, “you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets”, and much more.

The clash between this priest-led establishment and Jesus came to a head in Jerusalem. Jesus had become an irritant and a challenge to them. Among other things, he had gone to the temple and cleansed it of money-changers and other merchants declaring they had turned God’s house from one of prayer into a den of thieves.

The temple priests and other establishment elders met at the place of the High Priest. There they plotted to kill Jesus, but in a way to avoid a reaction from among the common people. So they had Jesus arrested under the cover of night, even though he had been out speaking openly to the people during the daylight of the preceding days. One of Jesus’ followers was paid money by the plotters to betray him and assist the arresting party.

Following this, events moved quickly throughout the night. Jesus was immediately taken before the chief priests, the scribes and elders. False witnesses against Jesus were produced, but to little avail as they could not get their stories straight. Jesus himself said little, thus forcing his accusers to make their case. What agitated them can be gleaned by the question the High Priest put to Jesus, “Tell us if you are the anointed, the son of God.” As planned, Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Then those present jostled and hit him as they spat in his face and mocked him.

By morning the priests and their accomplices had handed Jesus to the Romans, in an attempt to shift responsibility for the intended outcome away from themselves. This manoeuvre, together with the timing and the speed with which it was executed, was designed to obscure from the common people the precise role of the temple establishment in what was taking place. In handing Jesus to the Romans, the priests’ charge against Jesus had taken a subtle change. They now accused him of sedition. After questioning Jesus, the Roman Governor offered to release him. But the pressure from the priests and the mob prevented this. Then after more humiliation and physical abuse, Jesus was crucified along with two convicted criminals.

According to the nature of crucifixion, the men did not die immediately. The crucifixions took place on the day before an important religious day for Jews. After a while Jesus’ accusers, ever mindful of religious proprieties, asked that the legs of those crucified be broken so that they might be taken away before the following day. The soldiers broke the legs of the two criminals. But when they saw Jesus was already dead, one of them simply thrust a spear into his side.

During Jesus’ public life he had given his listeners guidance on how to live according to the ‘values of God’. When he had put those values into action it had cost him his life, as he knew it would. The phrases ‘character in action’ and ‘integrity in adversity’ justifiably describe this period of his life.


JESUS — THE THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT

After the crucifixion in 30AD some of Jesus’ followers and some new converts recorded what they saw as significant in Jesus’ life and his teachings. Eventually these writings collectively became known as the New Testament.

When this generation fell away, these writings came to be interpreted by those who shared neither the land nor the culture that had produced Jesus and his first followers. Factions put forward widely different interpretations, bitterly arguing their points of view, sometimes accompanied by violence. The nature of Jesus was finally determined by majority votes in the Ecumenical Councils called in the first millennium by Roman emperors. Or as the historian Edward Gibbon more elegantly wrote about the resolution of theological disputes under the reigns of the Emperor Constantine and his sons, “the prerogatives of the King of Heaven were settled, or changed, or modified, in the cabinet of an earthly monarch.”

It was still held that there was but one God, but now the one God was comprised of three parts of which Jesus was one. Eventually the term ‘Trinity’, a term unknown in the Bible, was employed to describe this configuration. Jesus, called the ‘son of God’ in the New Testament, was transformed into ‘God the Son’, a term unknown in the Bible. These interpreters of the New Testament also thought these writings said that Jesus was born of a virgin, a claim that would have astonished Jesus’ contemporaries. And so on.

One wonders what the Church’s theological construction known as ‘Jesus Christ’ has to do with Jesus’ teachings such as that of the Good Samaritan and the Sermon on the Mount, or with the issues that led to his judicial execution.

Does the New Testament say Jesus was God, or does it say he was a man appointed by God with a designated responsibility? According to the New Testament, while Jesus was alive both his followers and his opponents thought he was a mortal man. So did everyone else, including his family.

Did Jesus’ disciples teach that he was a man to be emulated, or did they say he was a God to be adored?


WHAT IF THE UNEXPECTED HAPPENED?

The Jews came to believe that there would be but one appearance of the ‘messiah’, and he would come in triumph and restore the fortunes of Israel.

After Jesus’ death his disciples claimed that not only had the prophets and the psalms foretold his humiliation and crucifixion, but also that there would be more than one appearance of the messiah.

Somewhat similar to their Jewish predecessors, Church people today believe that there will be but one more appearance of the messiah, and when this happens he will come in triumph and grandeur. Jesus’ words, when he spoke of “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”, are sometimes cited in support of this belief.

However, a few words earlier Jesus seemed to be talking about his coming again in altogether different terms: “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” This passage is suggestive of Jesus being present again, where the scale of values represented by those involved and the result of the clash of those values are similar to what occurred at his first appearance. Whatever the meaning of this passage, it does raise an intriguing question:

If Jesus was present, not in triumph and grandeur but in a situation of adversity, how would one recognize him as God’s anointed?

(1) This post draws freely from the ideas of Ted Wixted, some of whose writings are reproduced on my website.

[Johnny Poochie]

Seems to discount the possibility that Jesus will be hanging around the earth again as a regular man:

Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

[Antony]

This is a revised version of a recent post.

WOULD THE REAL JESUS STAND UP (1)

[SIZE=2]The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels bears little resemblance to the theological construction known as ‘Jesus Christ’. It is this latter figure that Church adherents have worshiped for almost two thousand years.

This raises the issue of whether these two versions of Jesus are compatible or at odds with each other. In order to address the issue it helps to first fathom what is the essence of each of these. The Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is a mortal man involved in real-life situations, while the Jesus of the theologians is God himself who appeared in human form.

After discussing this issue, this post asks what would happen if Jesus was to be present again in a situation analogous to his first appearance. Would Church people recognize Jesus a second time around, or would their image of ‘Jesus Christ’ blind them to Jesus in a real-life situation?


JESUS — THE MAN IN THE GOSPELS

When Jesus lived among his followers, they – like everyone else – believed he was a mortal man, the natural son of Joseph and Mary...

.

Did Jesus preach the doctrines such as Trinity, Virgin Birth, and Original Sin?

If Jesus wasn’t preaching these doctrines when he was alive, then what do they have to do with his message?

Is it possible that in fact these doctrines originated in the fertile imaginations of the early Greek and Latin theologians whose interpretations of the Bible still hold sway today?

If this is so, is it possible these theologians completely undermined whatever it was Jesus said?

And if this is the case, did these theologians crucify Jesus on an intellectual level as effectively as the religious establishment of Jesus’ day crucified him on a physical level?

[Ben Lomond]

The doctrine of Virgin Birth is the cornerstone of other basic “christian” dogmas of Holy Trinity, Original Sin, Incarnation, etc..
All are actually cases of proving the wrong points about what Jesus of Nazareth lived and died for.

Neither Jesus nor his Jewish disciples ever taught any of these doctrines or creeds either explicitly or by allegorical inference.
These doctrines are the result of Pagan Greek and later Latin theologians in their takeover and remake of a Hebrew religious sect that had split from the Jerusalem Temple after the judicial murder of their itinerant leader in 30ad.

The root of the problem lay in the enormous success of Paul’s recruiting evangelism among the pagan peoples in Asia Minor and other countries surrounding Judea. This resulted in an enormous influx of people - derived from Greek scientific and mathematically inclined thinking - that soon outnumbered those of Jewish ethnicity.
Jesus’ and Paul’s simple message of ‘wake up to yourself and change your ways,’ as exemplified in the psychology of crucifixion / resurrection was too simple and basic for the intellectually inclined Greeks.
Paul clearly recognized this problem when he wrote to the recalcitrant Corinthians in 1Co 1:22/23.
"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified - a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,"
This sentence by Paul totally factorizes the paradox and confusion in which both Christendom and Jewry finds itself today.
Such is the trap of intellectual self righteous ignorance.

Another important catalyst in the subjugation of the thinking and teaching of the early Nazarene sect was their dispersion after the murderous destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army under Titus in 70ad.

Christendom should remember that the first eight ecumenical church councils held between 325 and 869ad – where the nature of God and Jesus Christ was defined for all generations - were all held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Greek Emperor, and Latin representation never exceeded 4%.

[Nemo]

Fascinating discussion. ..My meagre 2 pennys worth. Narrative implies that a) Mary was a virgin and that she became pregnant due to Gods intervention. As we take it that God is behind the writting of the Bible. God is asking us to belive that is what happend.
For me on a personal level, the thing that makes me most uncomfortable about the entire story is that once Mary has given birth ...Joseph disappears...as in he is not mentioned after the events at Bethlehem. However Gods father and son relationship is Key to the Bible ...why would this be?

[Antony]

Fascinating discussion. ..My meagre 2 pennys worth. Narrative implies that a) Mary was a virgin and that she became pregnant due to Gods intervention.

The NT says that Mary was a virgin before her encounter with the angel. Subsequently Mary became pregnant. The NT does not say this occurred without the participation of a man. What it does say is that Joseph was not that man.

[Nemo]

I would not agree. The narrative implies that it was the power of God that caused Mary to become pregnant. Mary & Joseph were due to be married. The Angel tells Mary & Joseph that God alone caused her to become pregnant. Mary believed it and so did Joseph. All the NT accounts point to this. So the only other options would be that A) Mary was having an affair that Joseph new nothing about. B) Mary was raped C)Joseph really was the father.
A) Unlikely as she did marry Joseph and have more children. (however we do not no of any of the other characters present at that time in their social circle)
B) A possibility, but that would mean she would have had to make up the entire Angel coming to see her story.
C) Again unlikely, as in Mathew, Joseph is considering divorcing her , until he is visited by an angel

So narrative is implicit in all accounts that Mary became pregnant due to the intervention of God

[Antony]

The NT says when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant but not by him, he decided “to put her away”.

Joseph then received two instructions via a dream. One was to take Mary as his wife. The other was to call the son that would be born ‘Jesus’.

“Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son. And he called his name Jesus.”

The angel gave Joseph two instructions. He carried them both out.

It was not a matter of Joseph doing whatever he was inclined to do. It was a matter of doing what the angel of the Lord commanded him to do.

[Nemo]

Im sure that "Put her away" is to divorce. Mathews account indicates that Joseph was intending to divorce her as soon as possible. But Joseph shows what a decent man he is, as he could have made a huge song and dance about the fact that his wife to be just told him she was pregnant!.....and not by him.....Thats a huge thing for her to mention...as if she had been sleeping with someone else she would be killed by law. And she confided in him, so she trusted him with her life. And as hard for Joseph as it must have been...and we no for a fact he had serious doubts....he decided to trust in God...For me one of the acid tests or best described acts of "faith" ever. For everyone that believed them there must have been a hundred that did not.
Either that or they were both implicit in creating the biggest lie since the human race began

[Antony]

I would not agree. The narrative implies that it was the power of God that caused Mary to become pregnant. Mary & Joseph were due to be married. The Angel tells Mary & Joseph that God alone caused her to become pregnant. Mary believed it and so did Joseph. All the NT accounts point to this...

So narrative is implicit in all accounts that Mary became pregnant due to the intervention of God

Joseph was from the tribe of Judah, and Luke points to Mary being from the tribe of Levi. Both lived in the land of their ancestors and were inheritors of the Hebrew culture to be found in the Old Testament.

When on separate occasions an angel delivered information to Joseph and to Mary, there would be no point in doing so unless the angel spoke to them in words and phraseology they could understand.

Words that meant something to a Jew or Jewess brought up in a Hebrew culture may have had an altogether different meaning to someone a product of the Greek culture, such as the first interpreters of the writings eventually known as the New Testament, or indeed to church members of today who have inherited these “Greek” interpretations of the New Testament.

Would you mind providing the specific words in the New Testament by which you think Joseph and Mary were told, and presumably understood, that “God alone caused Mary to become pregnant”.
.

[biribiri]

Would you mind providing the specific words in the New Testament by which you think Joseph and Mary were told, and presumably understood, that “God alone caused Mary to become pregnant”.

ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου - found (to be) bearing in the womb from the Holy Spirit.

Joseph was told:
το γαρ εν αυτη γεννηθεν εκ πνευματος εστιν αγιου - for that which is conceived in her from the Spirit is Holy.
εκ denotes that the conception proceeds/arises from the Spirit, marking the Spirit as the cause.

[Antony]

ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου - found (to be) bearing in the womb from the Holy Spirit.

Joseph was told:
το γαρ εν αυτη γεννηθεν εκ πνευματος εστιν αγιου - for that which is conceived in her from the Spirit is Holy.
εκ denotes that the conception proceeds/arises from the Spirit, marking the Spirit as the cause.

Both these texts refer to Joseph. Would you also mind providing the specific words in the New Testament by which you think Mary was told, and presumably understood, that “God alone caused Mary to become pregnant”.
.