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

[Geoffrey]

You have to understand, everybody who was anybody in the ancient world was born to a virgin. The Buddha, Mithras, Augustus Ceasar, Krishna, and even Anakin Skywalker were born to virgins.

To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, there were no virgin birth stories of anyone in the years B. C.

I suspect the Gospel of Matthew was written rather early. I can imagine the Apostles asking Mary, "Would you tell us Jesus's genealogy?" As soon as she mentioned Jeconiah, there would have been a collective "Uh, oh". Then Mary had to tell them that Joseph was not the father. This, coupled with the different genealogy in Luke, would have served the purpose of answering the objection: "Jesus can't be the heir of David since his father (Joseph) descended from Jeconiah!"

[Tladatsi]

My Dear Geoffrey,

To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, there were no virgin birth stories of anyone in the years B. C.

You are ever so mistaken. Augustus Ceasar was born of a god and his virgin mother who fell asleep in the god's temple. Atia Balba Caesonia (Julius Ceasar's niece, Octavian's mother) was reported by Suetonius to have fallen asleep in the temple of Apollo and while she sleep a snake climbed up her leg and she concieved Octanian (Augustus). A divine virgin conception by Apollo.

There is a story that Alexander the Great's mother, Olympias, who conceived him and became pregnant before her marriage to Philip of Macedon after she had been struck by lightning. I think that the implication is that Zeus was the father.

Isis impregnated herself without intercourse with her dead husband Osiris (the exact mechanism is not clear) to give birth to their son Horus. Krishna's mother is no virgin (she had had seven children before Krishna) but was impregnated without intercourse with her husband by Vishnu. Similarly, Siddhartha Gautama's mother dreamt a white elephant entered her womb and she became pregnant without intercourse with her husband. Mithras has several different versions of a divine and miraculous births, all involving conception without intercourse.

All of these stories predate Matthew and Luke. In the first century, if you wanted to run with the Big Dogs, you had better have been born miraculously, certainly without intercourse, and best by a virgin.

[Ben Lomond]

Hello Geoffrey and Tladatsi,
I have followed your exchanges with close interest.

Geoffrey has obviously closely read the material posted on the wallsofjericho.info website very closely and to me he has a fairly good grasp of what is said there.

Tladatsi I like your signature post of the Bible saying what it means and meaning what it says.

Now how about this one from me???
Christian theologians have told us all that the disciples forgot to tell us and have forgotten to tell us all that the disciples told us.
Okay that is my little bit of jest, but watch out for the tail.

Sorry T. but the gospels were NOT written to demonstrate the divine paternity of Jesus (or Yeshua to his contemporaries).
The gospels and all the NT was written to prove that a person who was treated like human filth by the Temple Establishment was in fact God's anointed agent to intervene in the affairs of mankind.
The gospels simply show that the paradox woven through the OT was continued in the life of Yeshua Hanotzari; that the agents of our Almighty Father have most to fear from the careerists who inhabit the Temple and the Palace.

Geoffrey you have hit the nail on the head with:
The more I look at it, the more I think that the only reason any one sees a virginal conception in these narratives is because they expect to. I doubt whether a man completely ignorant of Christianity would find a virginal conception within these chapters.

It is only by centuries of constant repetition that the Christian theologians have conditioned their flocks like Pavlov conditioned his salivating dogs.

The essential issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with, likes or dislikes any theological material, but whether the matters raised are true or false.
As Jesus said “The truth shall make you free” and in the end, that is all that really matters.
All the waffling, huffing and puffing in the world cannot evade this essential question of ANY matter: Is it true or is it false?

The story of the virgin birth is so intermingled with church claims of Jesus' divinity that it is of singular importance to point out that the virgin birth story is not contained in the Bible. It results from reading Hebrew scripture concepts with a mind preconditioned with pagan connotations.

Now if this is true it has enormous consequences and leads directly to the question of whether the “Jesus Christ” of the theologians has anything in common with the “Jesus of Nazareth” of the New Testament gospels.

Perhaps the matter can be best illuminated by the following statement and question:

The church of his day did not recognize God’s messiah the first time when he came in weakness and humility. Would the church of today recognize him if he came in similar circumstances? Or would history repeat itself?

On the website www.wallsofjericho.info should you care to closely read the articles under link of “Doctrine of Virgin Birth”, you will find they are based on what the Bible actually says point by point.

This is my first post in this forum, so I trust I have not said too much.

Ben Lomond.



= = = = = = = = = =

[Antony]

“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” is the way Mary’s question is usually interpreted.

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?

The Catholic position realises 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?

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)?

[one_lost_coin]

If this thread was intended to discuss the theological consequences if there is no Ever Virgin Mary. Then I would offer that Christ's bride/the Church is not a spotless bride and the bible would therefore be wrong. I think it would also suggests that effects of sin are tolerable because God is not an all consuming fire.

[themuzicman]

I think the point the Geoffrey is missing is that while each individual part may not indicate virgin birth by itself, the compendium of statements by both Matthew and Luke add up to one thing: Mary was a Virgin when she gave birth. The point by point doesn't mean much when you fail to consider the whole.

And apparently he missed Matt 1:24-25, "25 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took [Mary] as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Michael

[TyRockwell]

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name God with Us. Isaiah 7:14

[Antony]

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name God with Us. Isaiah 7:14

A few members have quoted biblical texts in support of virgin birth that are wrong. This quotation of Isa 7:14 is another example, although there may be extenuating circumstances for anyone quoting this particular verse.

Isaiah spoke and wrote in Hebrew, and the Hebrew speaks only of a "young woman", not a "virgin".

About 500 years later, about 2nd century BC, a Greek translation known as the Septuagint mistranslated Isaiah's "young woman" as "virgin". Three Greek translations in the 2nd century AD corrected this mistake.

However the Greek and Latin "church fathers" preferred the Greek Septuagint mistranslation to the Herew original and the corrected Greek translations , for it suited their virgin birth story. So it was that the word "virgin" found its way into virtually all the church translations of Isaiah until quite recent times, and still occurs in some translations today.

The irony is that Isaiah's "virgin birth prophecy" does not come from Isaiah at all, but from a mistranslation of his words long after he died.

And the child of Isaiah's prophecy was named "Immanuel", a name made up of Hebrew words which mean "God with us". It was common for Hebrew names to have religious connotations. Elijah, for example, is made up of Hebrew words which mean "God himself".

[TyRockwell]

A few members have quoted biblical texts in support of virgin birth that are wrong. This quotation of Isa 7:14 is another example, although there may be extenuating circumstances for anyone quoting this particular verse.

Isaiah spoke and wrote in Hebrew, and the Hebrew speaks only of a "young woman", not a "virgin".

About 500 years later, about 2nd century BC, a Greek translation known as the Septuagint mistranslated Isaiah's "young woman" as "virgin". Three Greek translations in the 2nd century AD corrected this mistake.

However the Greek and Latin "church fathers" preferred the Greek Septuagint mistranslation to the Herew original and the corrected Greek translations , for it suited their virgin birth story. So it was that the word "virgin" found its way into virtually all the church translations of Isaiah until quite recent times, and still occurs in some translations today.

The irony is that Isaiah's "virgin birth prophecy" does not come from Isaiah at all, but from a mistranslation of his words long after he died.

And the child of Isaiah's prophecy was named "Immanuel", a name made up of Hebrew words which mean "God with us". It was common for Hebrew names to have religious connotations. Elijah, for example, is made up of Hebrew words which mean "God himself".

The NIV Study Bible notes indicate a betrothed, but unmarried young woman. Such a one in Hebrew culture would be expected to be a virgin.

The Holman CSB notes: a virgin is pregnant, will have a son...

Isaiah knew what he was saying. It was a SIGN. To take it out of a miraculous meaning would deprive it of being a SIGN. "The Lord himself will give you a SIGN..."

[Tladatsi]

Hello Ben Lomond,

Hello Geoffrey and Tladatsi,
I have followed your exchanges with close interest.

Tladatsi I like your signature post of the Bible saying what it means and meaning what it says.

As do I.

Now how about this one from me???

Please

Christian theologians have told us all that the disciples forgot to tell us and have forgotten to tell us all that the disciples told us.
Okay that is my little bit of jest, but watch out for the tail.

Just a jest?

Sorry T. but the gospels were NOT written to demonstrate the divine paternity of Jesus (or Yeshua to his contemporaries).
The gospels and all the NT was written to prove that a person who was treated like human filth by the Temple Establishment was in fact God's anointed agent to intervene in the affairs of mankind.

Ah, you misread my posting. I said that Chapter 1 of Luke and Matthew had the sole purpose demonstrating Jesus' divine paternity, not the the rest of those two or the other two Gospels.

The gospels simply show that the paradox woven through the OT was continued in the life of Yeshua Hanotzari; that the agents of our Almighty Father have most to fear from the careerists who inhabit the Temple and the Palace.

Perhaps but this beside the point of the OP. The question at hand is what do Matthew 1 and Luke 1 say about the state of Mary's body (and, as some would assert, her soul) when Jesus was conceived. For the aforementioned reasons, I think it is quite clear that the authors of Luke and Matthew wrote the first chapters of their Gospels to tell the reader / listener that Mary was a virgin.

This is my first post in this forum, so I trust I have not said too much.

Not at all. Welcome.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Antony,

“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” is the way Mary’s question is usually interpreted.

Yes that is more or less right. The Greek is closer to "since I know not a man" but the meaning is the same, as is the tense.

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?

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.

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?

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

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)?

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.

[Tladatsi]

Hello The Muzic Man,

I think the point the Geoffrey is missing is that while each individual part may not indicate virgin birth by itself, the compendium of statements by both Matthew and Luke add up to one thing: Mary was a Virgin when she gave birth. The point by point doesn't mean much when you fail to consider the whole.

And apparently he missed Matt 1:24-25, "25 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took [Mary] as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Michael

I agree, the broader context makes the point quite clear.

[Ben Lomond]

Hello again Tladatsi,

Sorry Tladatsi, but your view that “Chapter 1 of Luke and Matthew had the sole purpose of demonstrating Jesus' divine paternity”, is demonstrably false, and is based on an erroneous interpretation of the idiom used by the gospel writers.
It results from reading Hebrew concepts through pagan Greek / Latin tinted glasses.

Neither the opening chapter, nor the succeeding chapter of ANY of the gospels were written to demonstrate the “divine paternity of Jesus”. Known to his contemporaries as Yeshua Hanotzri, he was commonly supposed by friend foe alike to be the son of Joseph.

The gospels and all the NT was written to prove that this man who was judicially murdered by the Temple Establishment was in fact God’s agent anointed to establish and rule God’s kingdom among men on earth. The Book of Acts, which records the early apostolic teachings, and Paul’s letters stress this point over and over again.

That men murdered God’s anointed agent who was subsequently resurrected by God isn’t a trivial matter of “Perhaps, but this is beside the point” - it is the fundamental reason for the NT. being written.

The documented facts that the doctrine of virgin birth is an unbiblical myth are amply demonstrated on the www.wallsofjericho.info website if one cares to follow the menu link “Doctrine of Virgin Birth.”

Your view that “The question at hand is what do Matthew 1and Luke 1say about the state of Mary's body (and, as some would assert, her soul) when Jesus was conceived” sounds like the real stuff of the schoolmen or Thomas Aquinas.
I leave your thinly veiled innuendo about Mary’s character to the concern of those who had some say in the manner of their own conception. However I would draw their attention to that valiant judge of Israel, Jeptha (he was the occupational hazard of a prostitute) but whom Paul numbered among those men who ruled Israel righteously in the eyes of God (Heb 11:32). Also note that God’s instruction to the prophet Hosea to take and marry a whore may also be reflective food for those offended by the thought of Jesus’ father being a man other than the one his mother married.

Matthew chapter 1 makes some very salient points, which follow directly from his opening genealogy:
· Any child progeny of Joseph’s was debarred by God, through the prophet Jeremiah from ever inheriting the throne of David (Matt 1:11 and Jer 22:30). Consequently Joseph could not bestow upon Jesus a birthright, which wasn’t his in the first place.
· Jesus was NOT the progeny of Joseph, - though he was commonly supposed to be.
· Joseph was INSTRUCTED to go against his inclinations and to continue with his prearranged marriage to Mary. This he did.

Tladatsi, your opinion “I think it is quite clear that the authors of Luke and Matthew wrote the first chapters of their Gospels to tell the reader / listener that Mary was a virgin” overlooks the very pertinent fact that once Matthew and Luke became aware of Joseph’s descent from Jeconiah, it became important for them to correct the common belief that Joseph was Jesus’ father, in order to keep intact Jesus’ claim to messiahship.

To understand why these two gospel writers give the details they do, requires an appreciation of the following points:
· It was commonly supposed that Joseph was the father of Jesus.
· Because of his ancestry, Joseph could not be the father of the messiah.
· It was necessary to state Joseph was not the father of Jesus, in order to keep Jesus’ claim to messiahship intact.
· The father of Jesus was necessarily a descendant of David from an eligible line.

In Luke 1:32/33, the messenger Gabriel has given Mary criteria (obviously messianic) of a child that she is to conceive some time in the future.
Mary being a blood relation to Elizabeth (a Levi - Lu 1:5 and 1:36) instantly sees herself in a seemingly impossible position. She is a Levi girl betrothed to a man descended from a line debarred never again to sit on David’s throne, and is being told that she will conceive a messianic child.
Thus Mary's question to Gabriel is absolutely pertinent and understandable:
“How shall this be seeing I do not know a man?”
Her question in Luke 1:34 is unmistakably similar to Zechariah’s question in Luke 1:18.
In both cases Luke uses the same Greek word “ginosko” It has every thing to do with “being aware of” and in 1:34 the tense of the verb totally precludes sexual connotations.

Being a “son of God” is a spiritual matter that has every thing to do with one’s character being “led by the spirit of God” (Jn 1:12; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:25) and nothing to do with belief in doctrinal pagan mythology.

The churches of Christendom are totally united on the doctrine of virgin birth, and it will prove to be their Achilles heel.

= = = = = = = = = =

[Tladatsi]

Shalom Shabat Ben Lomond,

Hello again Tladatsi,

The good moderator (Kelp) of this forum reminds me that certain rules apply to this forum. One of which one must be willing publicly place oneself into a specific set of categories that I have not yet found the peace to do. Having already extended my stay here far beyond the what the rules, and the patience of my fine friend Kelp allow (sorry again), I fear I cannot reply here. None the less I find this an very satisfying line of discussion. I have created a parallel thread in General Theistics 101. Should your interest and fellowship allow, you may wish to continue the discussion there.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...43#post2388743

[Ben Lomond]

Tladatsi, I note your statement to Geoffrey:
“The author of the Gospels were not writing novels to achieve certain emotional effects, they were writing to present the Good News. They were making theological (or Christiological) points. They were not going for "Aw, ain't that cute" but "This is the Son of God". Entire point of Matthew 1and Luke 1is Jesus is the descendant of King David in the male line and thus the Messiah as for told in Scripture. Moreover, He is the begotten son of God Himself as evidenced by the virgin conception. These chapters are pointless without a virgin conception.”

These comments of yours Tladatsi, can't be let pass and require some comment

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.

While on the contrary many texts proclaim Jesus to be the only begotten, or first born of God by virtue of his being the first born from death by resurrection.
This is the pivotal point of the whole NT.

If by his so called virgin birth the churches think that Jesus overcame the so called stain of “original sin,” then why didn’t the apostles and Paul teach the people to become baptized into Jesus’ virgin birth???

Quite the contrary, read what Paul was teaching in Rom 6:3: “Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death?”

The NT is very specific about when Jesus became the only begotten son of God. It was the day he was resurrected by God from death.

Acts 13:33. “God has fulfilled the same unto us ... in that he has raised up Jesus again;
as it is written in the second Psalm “You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.”
Rom 1:3. “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, ... declared to be the Son of God
with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”
Col 1:18. “ ... who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may have pre-eminence.”
Rev 1:5. “ ... Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.”

By baptizing ourselves into Jesus’ death, we “put on Christ” and “become one body with him”.

Colloquially it could be likened to “turning over a new leaf.”

As with “baptism” the process of “crucifixion, resurrection” only becomes meaningful when we individually apply it to our own conduct in our every day lives. These are not hollow symbolic gestures, but dynamic living principles by which we enter the Kingdom of God.

The churches by proclaiming the doctrine of virgin birth illustrate the case of covering the wrong points.

= = = = = = = = = =