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

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to John Goddard’s posts #225, #223 and many others:

I make the observation that by chasing side issues this thread is in danger of losing its opening theme

Nevertheless, I will comment on John Goddard's use of Isaiah:

The Prophet Isaiah is truly one of the OT heavyweights who was prolifically referred to by Jesus and other NT disciple writers.
Absolutely nowhere in the NT do any of its characters attribute a meaning remotely approaching “virgin birth” to the 53rd chapter of Isaiah.

If any one differs with this opinion, then please give some textual reference.

The whole tenor of the disciples preaching recorded in the NT was that God’s anointed agent, Jesus of Nazareth was humiliated and crucified by men who should have known better, and indeed this was a recurring paradox which was foretold by the OT prophets.

Mankind may propose all it likes, but ultimately it is God who disposes – and for this end it was God who resurrected Jesus of Nazareth from the grave to show mankind just who is in control.

The prophet Hosea factorizes the controversy / contention between God and mankind as being very basic indeed.
Hos 4:1. Jehovah hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor goodness nor knowledge of God in the land.

The disciples in their preaching of Jesus’ crucifixion continued with Hosea’s underlying theme of lack of truth, goodness and justice among the administrators in the land.

Follow the disciples theme in these NT texts:

Acts 3:18. “ … But the things, which God had before showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled.”

Acts 2:36. ...God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.

Acts 4:10. ... Jesus of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead,...

Acts 4:26. ...the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Anointed:...

Acts 7:51. You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears!
You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

Acts 7:52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them that showed before of the coming of the righteous one; of whom you have become betrayers and murderers.

Acts 26:22, 23. “ To this day I stand witnessing to both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say would come - That the Christ would suffer, that he would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.“

Gal 4:29. “ … he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, it is so even now.”

1Cor 2:2. “ I know not anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

The disciples saw Jesus of Nazareth as a man among men who selflessly discharged his responsibilities to Yaweh his heavenly Father who had delegated him with power and authority.

The doctrines of “virgin birth”, “trinity”, “incarnation” etc etc do not come from the Hebrew values taught by the Jesus or his Jewish disciples. These doctrines are really fabrications by pagan Greeks after they took control of the Scriptures in the second century AD.

The world needs to get its feet back on the ground, its head out of the clouds, take a good dose of common sense and common decency, then maybe it will see the issues that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died for in a mundane context that can be applied and manifested in their own everyday lives.

Ben Lomond.

= = = = = = = = = =

[Antony]

If the Jews thought Isaiah had predicted the messiah would be born of a virgin, then without doubt Jesus’ enemies would have thrown the prophecy at him. But of course there was no such prophecy, and no such taunt was forthcoming.

The above quote from “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” acknowledges that the Jews knew nothing about a virgin birth prophecy: “the Incarnation and all its circumstances were also at variance with prevailing Jewish Messianism and thought.”

In the NT Jesus never said anything about his birth, John the Baptist and the first followers of Jesus knew nothing about a virgin birth, Jesus’ followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection thought of him as a prophet, there is not one instance in Paul’s letters about a virgin birth, and Acts does not record any of the apostles ever preaching the virgin birth. Were they all ignorant of a virgin birth prophecy?

Do you think Mary knew about a virgin birth prophecy?

The single instance in the NT that supposedly recognizes the virgin birth prophecy is in Matthew. But then Matthew supposedly did not actually quote what Isaiah said, but used a Greek translation of Isaiah which say something different.

Is anyone even a little bit suspicious that there is no virgin birth prophecy in the Bible?

Or put it this way, since -

1) Jesus said nothing about his birth, and

2) John the Baptist and his disciples knew nothing about a virgin birth prophecy, and thought the messiah to be a normal man,

3) nor did the enemies of Jesus know anything about a messianic virgin birth prophecy, and

4) by the time of the crucifixion his followers, typified by the pair on the road to Emmaus, thought him to be a "prophet, mighty in deed and word before God" (nothing to do with third part of the Trinity, virgin birth, etc), and

5) the apostles never preached anything about a virgin birth,


therefore,

- do you think there was a prophecy that the messiah would be virgin born, and

- if so, when did this prophecy become known to the followers of Jesus, and

- does this mean that before this point in time that they were operating under the impression that Jesus was conceived like any normal man, and

- does this mean that Mary knew nothing about a virgin birth prophecy, and therefore it had nothing to do with the question she asked the angel?


Antony

[RBerman]

- do you think there was a prophecy that the messiah would be virgin born, and

Yes.

- if so, when did this prophecy become known to the followers of Jesus,

No later than the writing of Matthew 1:18-24 and Luke 1:26-38.

- does this mean that before this point in time that they were operating under the impression that Jesus was conceived like any normal man, and

Possibly. The Bible doesn't say.

- does this mean that Mary knew nothing about a virgin birth prophecy, and therefore it had nothing to do with the question she asked the angel?

One doesn't have to know about a virgin birth prophecy to know that one is a pregnant virgin.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to RBerman post #228:

I respectfully suggest that you go back to the opening post and read through.

You will find that your references to both Matthew and Luke's Gospels have been thoroughly canvassed from all directions.

To redo them again would be to slay the slain.

Have you consulted Antony's website www.wallsofjericho.info ???

There you will find a systematic deconstruction of the doctrine of "virgin birth" on the theologians own evidence.

Ben Lomond.
= = = = = = = = = =

[Antony]

Yes.



No later than the writing of Matthew 1:18-24 and Luke 1:26-38.



Possibly. The Bible doesn't say.



One doesn't have to know about a virgin birth prophecy to know that one is a pregnant virgin.

RBerman has commented on, but not contested, the points he addresses.

However when reading his comments, keep in mind that

- Matthew and Luke's gospels were written years after the crucifixion, and

- Mary became pregnant after the angel's visit.

Antony

.

[Antony]

Or put it this way, since -

1) Jesus said nothing about his birth, and

2) John the Baptist and his disciples knew nothing about a virgin birth prophecy, and thought the messiah to be a normal man,

3) nor did the enemies of Jesus know anything about a messianic virgin birth prophecy, and

4) by the time of the crucifixion his followers, typified by the pair on the road to Emmaus, thought him to be a "prophet, mighty in deed and word before God" (nothing to do with third part of the Trinity, virgin birth, etc), and

5) the apostles never preached anything about a virgin birth,


therefore,

- do you think there was a prophecy that the messiah would be virgin born, and

- if so, when did this prophecy become known to the followers of Jesus, and

- does this mean that before this point in time that they were operating under the impression that Jesus was conceived like any normal man, and

- does this mean that Mary knew nothing about a virgin birth prophecy, and therefore it had nothing to do with the question she asked the angel?


Antony

Think of this -

When Peter said to Jesus you are the "christ" (that is, the "anointed"), did he believe Jesus to be a normal man anointed by God to a role foretold in the OT? In fact, very few would suggest otherwise.

Should Jesus be God the Son, third part of the Trinity, virgin-born, etc, then he either with-held facts from those about him or he must have been a very poor communicator, for early in his ministry John the Baptist and his followers thought Jesus was a normal man, during his ministry Peter thought Jesus was a normal man when he declared Jesus was the "christ", and at the end of his ministry followers - typified by the pair on the road to Emmaus - thought Jesus to be a prophet great in word and deed, but nevertheless a normal man.

If the NT says the OT foretold that God would anoint a normal man, like Moses, for a particular role and that Jesus fulfilled that role precisely, then the theologians have completely misrepresented Jesus the man and his message.

So does the NT say Jesus was divine, or does it say he was a normal man like you and me?

The virgin birth story is an integral part of the claim that Jesus is God. If it is shown the virgin birth story is unbiblical, then the remainder of the associated church doctrines of Jesus' divinity will fall like a row of dominoes.

You do not put new wine in old bottles. Showing the truth about the virgin birth story is about replacing the old bottles with a new one.

It is only then that Jesus' message will be seen for what it is. In that regard it is worth reading Ben Lomond's posts.

Antony


.

[RBerman]

I respectfully suggest that you go back to the opening post and read through. You will find that your references to both Matthew and Luke's Gospels have been thoroughly canvassed from all directions. To redo them again would be to slay the slain.

I must confess that the signal-to-noise ratio in the previous 14 pages of the thread was so poor that I gave up after a couple of pages. If that means you don't want to discuss this matter futher (and apparently again) I can live with that.

Have you consulted Antony's website www.wallsofjericho.info ???

No. Doesn't this board have a policy against advertising personal websites? If I have to read every website on the internet before I can participate in discussion, I'll be back in about fifty years.

I agree that the gospels were written years after the events described therein. I don't see the relevance of that observation, however. Point taken that Mary was not yet pregnant when the angel announced her impending pregnancy. My point still stands that it became pretty obvious to her that she was a pregnant virgin.

[Antony]

I agree that the gospels were written years after the events described therein. I don't see the relevance of that observation, however. Point taken that Mary was not yet pregnant when the angel announced her impending pregnancy. My point still stands that it became pretty obvious to her that she was a pregnant virgin.

Rberrnan,

You do not seem to have picked up on the points being made.

So two questions:

1) When did people find out about the virgin birth, and do you have a biblical reference for your answer?

2) Why did Mary ask the question she did? (in fact, this question has been examined at some length in this thread.)

Antony

[RBerman]

1) When did people find out about the virgin birth, and do you have a biblical reference for your answer?

2) Why did Mary ask the question she did? (in fact, this question has been examined at some length in this thread.)

1) Mary found out about the Virgin Birth when the angel told her. Others found out decades later, as the gospel authors were assembling their biographies of Christ. The exact dates are debatable but would have been after Christ's ascension.

2) Mary asked the question she did because she was surprised that she was going to be pregnant without sexual intercourse.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to RBerman's post #232 and 234:

I post on this webpage is to canvass certain points of view and am happy to answer relevant reasonable objections.

However the points you raise would answer themselves if you carefully cogitate the matter or glean through from the OP.

While there was certainly much noise among the previous 200 posts, nevertheless there is much grain to winnow from the chaff.

Ben Lomond.
= = = = = = = = = =

[RBerman]

Feel free to disregard my posts if you have no interest in responding to me de novo. For my part, the time investment required to digest the previous 230 posts does not yield a reasonable dividend.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to RBerman posts # 228 - 236:

I can’t see how any one can make a substantial contribution to any thread if they refuse to read through previous posts or consult a recommended webpage which systematically analyzes the issues under consideration.

Many of the previous posts of this thread contain closely reasoned points of view regardless of whether one either agrees or disagrees with them.

So far you have only submitted a few short connotational comments with no substantial supporting evidence.

Re your protest about advertising personal websites – I have followed more links posted by Twebbers on this website than I have had hot dinners.

Ben Lomond
= = = = = = = = = =

[RBerman]

I understand you to be saying that you don't want to interact with me unless I read the first 14 pages of this thread first. I'm not going to do that, and I'm OK with you not wanting to interact with me on those terms. Suffice to say that I'm acquainted with the viewpoint which denies the Virgin Birth, and I find it lacking, not least because the gospel of Matthew is quite explicit on the point. If Matthew is divinely inspired and inerrant, the time of its writing does not change the information it contains.

[John Goddard]

The doctrines of “virgin birth”, “trinity”, “incarnation” etc etc do not come from the Hebrew values taught by the Jesus or his Jewish disciples. These doctrines are really fabrications by pagan Greeks after they took control of the Scriptures in the second century AD.

Variations on each are found in the OT.

BIRTH MIRACLE

Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

TRINITY/INCARNATION, MAN BECOMES LIKE GOD THROUGH HIS SPIRIT

Exodus 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

So I accept a form of Trinity, Jesus like Moses was given the Spirit of God to be like God to us. It's still God taking on the nature of a man, and man taking on the nature of God.

1 Samuel 10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

Though I agree Gentiles have added some twists to what is actually said about the nature of Jesus, the core ideas are present in the Hebrew Bible.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to John Goddard post #239:

You are doing your usual act John Goddard of "drawing a long bow,”

Your quote of Genesis 17:17 relating to Abraham and Sarah has absolutely NOTHING to do with the theological proposition of Jesus of Nazareth being born of “virgin birth.”
What disciple ever used this quote as you do???
It should be seen in similar terms to the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah and Elizabeth as recounted in the first chapter of Luke’s Gospel.

And what is your point???

It is no embarrassment to either an informed Jew or to myself that Almighty God the creator of the universe and everything in it, can intervene in the manner of a woman’s child bearing???

My point always has been that no OT prophet said that Israel’s messiah would be a product of “virgin birth” and consequently no NT writer recorded that a non existent prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

The matter of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 being misrepresented through Septuagint mistranslations has been thoroughly canvassed - Refer to the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion

I have posted many times what Paul said in Acts 26:22, 23.
“ To this day I stand witnessing to both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say would come - That the Christ would suffer, that he would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.“

And I –Ben Lomond stand saying that NO disciple preached “virgin birth” of Jesus of Nazareth, and never did Jesus claim it of himself.

I fail to see how your Bible quotes relating to Moses’ relationship to Aaron and Samuel’s relationship to Saul stand up as proof of the doctrine of Holy Trinity.

Okay, so God’s spirit came mightily upon Saul – so what???
It also came mightily upon other anointed agents of God, but that didn’t make them incarnations of God.

I have posted previously how the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome proclaims that the doctrine of Holy Trinity to be a REVEALED doctrine through her teaching authority. Other revealed doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Bodily Assumption of Mary.

According to the Bible, the animating principles of the world are love and truth. These are very simple things. They are also very hard things. They were much too simple for the mathematically minded Greeks. Accustomed as they were to worshiping their mystical Trinitarian gods and goddesses, and proving their geometrical problems by the use of triangles, they approached the biblical problems with a mentality pre-inclined towards a triangular proof.

Reading a Hebrew problem through Greek eyes they arrived at an incorrect Greek solution to which the name of Trinity has been given. This doctrine is a mathematical proposition expressed in Biblical terms and nothing more.

Ben Lomond.