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

[one_lost_coin]

For example…

1) The angel told Mary the “Holy Spirit” would come upon her, but according to Luke the Holy Spirit also came “upon” Simeon and Jesus. Elsewhere in the Bible the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God (for they are the same thing) came “upon” the apostles, prophets, Judges and others. It is only in Mary’s case that the “Holy Spirit coming upon” her is read as God impregnating someone.

2) The term holy one applies to others besides Jesus. As Luke tells us in his next chapter, it is written in the Law that “every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”. Jesus was the first-born, and was called holy to the Lord according to the Law.

3) will be called the son of God… the same as discussed above in The angel’s announcement to Mary.

4) for with God nothing will be impossible… this statement applies as much to Elizabeth as it does to Mary. It is only in Mary’s case that it is read as referring to miraculous conception.

In pointing to the example of Elizabeth, the angel was assuring Mary that what he had told her would eventuate. Just as God had overseen what had happened to Elizabeth, so too God would ensure what had been told to Mary would come to pass.

Mary would have a son who would be eligible to sit upon the throne of David. This would come about in spite of her present circumstances, for with God nothing is impossible.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

1) Yes because it is the only time it was anounced that anyone would give birth to God. Oh by way it may help you understand the difference between the Holy Spirit living in one as received in batism which we bear fruit in that men can't give birth to children yet recieve the same One Holy Spirit that women do and bear spiritual fruit also. Mary who revealed the fruit of her womb Jesus is special because No one else has ever done that.

2) Holy one is being used in two different senses none of the other holy ones were God who is the Holy One who makes holy. They didn't have any trouble understanding the difference neither do I.

3)Ephraim the Syrian, St [306-373 AD]On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh "Who hath given me the Son of the Most High to be a Son to me? I was jealous of Thy Mother, and I thought to put her away, and I knew not that in her womb was hidden a mighty treasure, that should suddenly enrich my poor estate. David the king sprang of my race, and wore the crown: and I have come to a very low estate, who instead of a king am a carpenter. Yet a crown hath come to me, for in my bosom is the Lord of crowns!"

4) No angel has ever greeted a human with the honor with which Mary was greeted. I will give you anothe hint one was Barren the other was a Virgin your a smart guy I'm sure you will figure out what it means. There are a number of things that are impossible among them is for your interpretation to ever be true.

[Geoffrey]

1. This is not the thread to point out the fact that the Nicene Creed, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. teach the virginal conception.

2. This is not the thread to point out that the overwhelming majority of scholars teach that Matthew 1 and Luke 1 teach the virginal conception...

Instead, this thread seeks to investigate one question: Does the Bible teach the virginal conception?

.

[TyRockwell]

.

Yes, that has been established.

[Antony]

Great another so called language expert who has freed himself from the shackles of culture. How is it you all got looked over by publishers to be part of the translation team?

Lets look at Luke 1 then I will get my own team of experts since I am not one. They just happen to be alive back then and I expect their can be no objection to their understanding as they aren't translating.

Gregory Thaumaturgus [213-275 AD]
Twelve Topics on the Faith
If any one affirms that Christ was born of the seed of man by the Virgin, in the same manner as all men are born, and refuses to acknowledge that He was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary, and became man of the seed of David, even as it is written, let him be anathema.
Explication. How could one say that Christ was born of the seed of man by the Virgin, when the holy
Gospel and the angel, in proclaiming the good tidings, testify of Mary the Virgin that she said, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Wherefore he says, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Highest." And to Joseph he says, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a soil, and they shall call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins."

Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD]
On Holy Virginity
4. Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; "How," saith she, " shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, "How shall this take place?" and had not added, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.

I guess you must be a better theologian than Gregory or Augustine? How did the world get along without you all these years? Or maybe the reason every single person in the early Church believed she was Virgin is because it was true. Teaching something other than the truth makes one a heretic. Are you so evolved that now you can say Gregory and Augustine are heretics?

one-lost-coin,

Thank you for your comments on my Post No. 104.

You certainly have an impressive team with members like Gregory Thaumaturgus and Augustine of Hippo. What they expounded on virgin birth is still held by the RCC today, so it might be said their followers are numbered in the hundreds of millions. As for myself, I am not aware that I have any followers, except maybe for the family dog whose name is Factsfirst, and even he is a bit hard to control at times.

Interestingly, your quotes from these two Church Fathers and Saints (for they are so designated by the RCC) reinforce some points made in my Post, namely —

• The Greeks and Latins were the early interpreters of the NT and moulded the way all generations to the present look at the Bible.
  
  
• RC theologians have long… claimed Mary must have made a pact of perpetual virginity with Joseph beforehand, and this was the reason behind her question (“How can I conceive a child, when I intend to remain a virgin all my life?”).

I noticed Augustine says that before the angel’s visit Mary had dedicated her virginity to God and this was foreign to Jewish thinking of the time or, in Augustine’s words, “because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this”.

Given that this alleged vow was so un-Jewish, made even more remarkable if husband-to-be Joseph was complicit in such an arrangement, one would expect Luke to have said something about it in his gospel. After all, Luke “had a perfect understanding of things from the very first’’ and set out to “write an orderly account”.

So please tell, where does Luke mention this vow of virgintiy, or if he did not mention it why not?

Antony

[John Goddard]

Re John Goddard's post #90:

Hello John,

Re the meaning of what Isaiah said to his king in Isa 7:14:

Understand the circumstances of the conversation:
The countryside is being razed and pillaged by confederated armies who are expected to lay siege to Jerusalem.

Isaiah is intent in pressing a SIGN upon his king that Jerusalem will not be taken captive by these marauding people.
The sign Isaiah gave was that a young woman will give birth to a male child who will become a living chronometer for the king to measure off the years.

A "virgin birth" could NEVER be used as a sign in such circumstances, as it would take miraculous perception to know whether or not it was truly a "virgin birth."

The sign to King Ahaz was to be THE LIVING CHILD not the manner of his conception. Before the child knows good from evil, the enemies of King Ahaz will be defeated.

It all has nothing to do with "virgin birth".

Matthew simply shows that Jesus in his own life RELIVED the history of the nation of Israel.

Ask your theological instructor about the principle of COMPENETRATION which pervades the whole Bible.

Ben Lomond.

= = = = = = = = = =

I already laid out the circumstances showing that the enemies of Jerusalem -- evolved as the Gentile Beast and Ten Horns of Israel scattered among Gentiles (Isaiah 14:29) -- will be finally defeated when Jesus returns to Judge, "knowing good from evil." So the true fulfillment does have Jesus as that child, and thus is about a virgin birth.

Both in the literal sense of Mary giving birth to him as a child, and in the metaphorical sense of faithful Israel as New Jerusalem the Lamb's Bride giving birth to the Messianic Kingdom.

[SozzledBoot]

I find it incredible that those who purport to be exegeticists, whatever that term means, or whatever I intend for that term to mean, nit-pick and semantic-worship the etymology and evolution of a word to death in order that they might arrive at an interrogative conclusion, whatever that means!

Every word in every lexicon in every language in every culture in every period of history has so many interpretations and layers of meaning as to render even the concept of using words to communicate ideas a laughable logical fallacy!

Fortunately, God was not educated in any university and still speaks to the duh side of the brain which uses common sense in determining common usage and meaning.

The difference between meanings in words of the various translations or writings of Scripture can be summed up thus:

The word of God is inspired for those who believe and was inspired for those who do not!

[Ben Lomond]

Hello SozzledBoot,

In reply to your post #111 and others I will try to factorize the issues in clear and uncomplicated language:

The problem with some people who engage in theological debate is that they don’t get their facts right before they engage. Frequently they ”put the cart before the horse” in that they assume as being proved the very matter that is under contention and needs to be proved.

The whole purpose of the NT is to demonstrate on the basis of OT scripture that a man (Jesus of Nazareth) who was crucified in Jerusalem as a common criminal who created a public nuisance of himself was in fact God’s anointed agent to establish and rule the kingdom of God on earth. This is a very simple straightforward proposition and is summed up by Paul “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” (1Cor 1:22/23).

Additionally, Paul on several occasions said “... 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.“ (Acts 26:22.23).

Again in Acts 18:28. “… he (Paul) publicly showed by the Scriptures (the OT) that Jesus was Christ.“
And again in Acts 28:23. “ … he (Paul) persuaded them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets ,,,”

As with Jesus of Nazareth so too with the NT disciples, all their proclamations and teachings could be (needed to be) shown to be valid from the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament.)

It was with the benefit of hindsight after several years to cogitate the totally unexpected turn of events with the judicial murder of their leader that the disciples brought the NT writings into existence. And their whole purpose was to reconcile the totally unexpected RESULTS of a crucified messiah with the EXPECTATIONS of God’s kingdom being ruled by a king who would restore the fortunes of Israel AT HIS ONE AND ONLY APPEARANCE.

The doctrines of virgin birth, trinity, incarnation, original sin, etc etc have absolutely no place in OT messianic expectancy and consequently no place in the NT which was written to demonstrate that Jesus was God’s anointed. The disciple John in his first and second letters bewailed the fact that in his own time misrepresentations of the disciple’s message were already abounding.

The concept of “apotheosis” along with “virgin birth” was a common pagan Greek concept of the gods taking on human form, where as to the Jews it was and remains an abomination.

Witness the contrast of public responses to the performance of healing miracles in the presence of Jews by Jesus (Matt 9:8), and by Paul in the presence of pagan Gentiles, (Acts 14:11).

I repeat, Paul said “... To this day I stand witnessing to both small and great, saying -no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say would come ...“

Neither Paul nor any other disciple ever preached virgin birth, trinity or original sin.
These "Christian" doctrines pretend to be promoting the cause of Jesus of Nazareth, where as in reality they are the quintessence of misrepresenting him.

Ben Lomond.

= = = = = = = = = =.

[SozzledBoot]

Actually you just helped me to rest my case.

[Antony]

I find it incredible that those who purport to be exegeticists, whatever that term means, or whatever I intend for that term to mean, nit-pick and semantic-worship the etymology and evolution of a word to death in order that they might arrive at an interrogative conclusion, whatever that means!

Every word in every lexicon in every language in every culture in every period of history has so many interpretations and layers of meaning as to render even the concept of using words to communicate ideas a laughable logical fallacy!

Fortunately, God was not educated in any university and still speaks to the duh side of the brain which uses common sense in determining common usage and meaning.

The difference between meanings in words of the various translations or writings of Scripture can be summed up thus:

The word of God is inspired for those who believe and was inspired for those who do not!

One_lost_coin (Post 105) is quite derisory of someone who challenges the traditional interpretation of the Bible, while here SozzledBoot has put forward propositions so contradictory that one wonders if he is just playing his own little joke.

Jesus had something to say about those who put tradition before the word of God: “You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.”

The lesson to be drawn is that we are all responsible for our own actions, and we cannot hide from that responsibility by appealing to “tradition” or any other device that makes us feel comfortable.

In the issue at hand, "does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?", it is a matter of accepting responsibility for attempting to get at the truth by applying effort and using an open mind, listening, reflection, inquiry, logic and common sense as best we can.

An aid to this process is to follow competing arguments, to sift fact from opinion, to differentiate between substantaited information and proclamation, to weigh questions and answers.

Here is a question that I put to one_lost_coin (Post 109) that so far has gone unanswered:

Given that Mary’s alleged vow of virginity was so un-Jewish, made even more remarkable if husband-to-be Joseph was complicit in such an arrangement, one would expect Luke to have said something about it in his gospel. After all, Luke “had a perfect understanding of things from the very first’’ and set out to “write an orderly account”.

So please tell, where does Luke mention this vow of virgintiy, or if he did not mention it why not?

[Antony]

Sozzleboot is a type that that I have seen at open Public Forums.

They intervene at different speakers’ stands causing a minor sensation with their flurry of words and self-certainty. The speed of delivery, a mixture of common sentiments mixed with gobbledy gook, the propensity to shift ground without flagging this is what they are doing, stating contradictions without a blush — all this makes it difficult for the audience to work out what this person really stands for, initially at least.

Of course the answer is they stand for nothing. They are just posing. Their goal is to be noticed, not to further some cause of argument.

This type usually moves on before their tactic becomes too transparent, but they do tend to sidetrack serious issues for a little while.

On a serious matter —

I notice one_lost_coin still hasn’t informed us where Luke mentions Mary’s alleged vow of virginity, or if he did not mention it why not?

[Antony]

In Post 105, one-lost-coin quoted Augustine as saying Mary had made a vow of virginity, and this was the reason she asked the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Had one_lost_coin cared to he could have quoted just about every catholic theologian since Augustine to show they also support this argument.

In Post 109 my question to one_lost_coin, thrice put and still unanswered, was to do with how incredible it would have been for a Jewish female about to be married to have made such a vow in those times (as catholic theologians allege), and whether the careful writer of Luke’s gospel would have felt compelled to record such a remarkable vow as part of the birth narrative —

I noticed Augustine says that before the angel’s visit Mary had dedicated her virginity to God and this was foreign to Jewish thinking of the time or, in Augustine’s words, “because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this”.

Given that this alleged vow was so un-Jewish, made even more remarkable if husband-to-be Joseph was complicit in such an arrangement, one would expect Luke to have said something about it in his gospel. After all, Luke “had a perfect understanding of things from the very first’’ and set out to “write an orderly account”.

So please tell, where does Luke mention this vow of virgintiy, or if he did not mention it why not?

(Post 109)

More than a fortnight has passed since this question was first put, and there has been zero response. Presumably a reply is not forthcoming, or at least not one that demonstates Mary’s alleged vow has any biblical basis.

Of course, the answer is that Mary’s alleged vow of virginity does not derive from the NT but rather it came from the fertile imaginations of the early Greek and Latin interpreters of the Bible. They conjured up this alleged vow of virginity in order to make sense of the peculiar way they interpreted Mary’s question, “How can this be (which they said referred to a future conception), since I know not a man (which they said referred to her virginity)?”

The Protestant churches reject the claim of Mary’s alleged vow of virginity, but retain the inherited peculiar catholic interpretation of Mary’s question.

The purpose of Mary’s question is examined in some detail in Post 104, and as explained there it had nothing to do with sexual matters.

(The overlay of centuries of Latin and Greek theology on the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures presents its own challenges when interpreting these writings. In a future post I will make a few simple suggestions as how to go about finding what the biblical writers really said, using Mary’s question as an example.)

[Antony]

(The overlay of centuries of Latin and Greek theology on the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures presents its own challenges when interpreting these writings. In a future post I will make a few simple suggestions as how to go about finding what the biblical writers really said, using Mary’s question as an example.)

The Church Fathers

It is a fact of history that Christendom today views the Bible in the mould first fashioned by the Greek “Church Fathers”, with later contribuions from their Latin counterparts.

The Greeks and Latins had a religious heritage that was in stark contrast with that of the Hebrew / Jewish people as expressed in the OT, and the Church Fathers were particularly unsuited to interpret the events and writings centred on the Hebrew / Jewish people.

The essence of their interpretations reflected their Greek heritage, and an objective observer would conclude the Church Fathers saw the Bible through the prism of their own culture rather than through the eyes of the biblical writers.

The Trinity, God in human form, miraculous birth, and so on are the sort of things that do not come naturally out of the Hebrew culture. Other pointers such as the title Pontifex Maximus, of pagan origin and subsequently assigned to the Emperors and then to the popes, only serve to reinforce the evidence about what path the Church followed.


Jewish versus Gentile perceptions

Below are two NT texts which illustrate the different outlooks of Jews and those of Greek heritage. (The Gentiles referred to were located in Asia Minor, in the Greek half of the Empire.) The Jews perceived that the power for men to perform miracles came from God, while the Gentiles saw the miracle workers as gods.

When the multitudes saw the miracle performed by Jesus, “they marvelled and glorified God, who had given such power to men.” (Mt 9:6-8)


However, when the Gentiles saw what Paul had done, “they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian laguage, ‘The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!’ They called Barnabas ‘Zeus’, and Paul ‘Hermes’, since he was their chief speaker.‘ " (Acts 14:11-12)

Interpreting the Bible

Apart from the obvious difficulties of interpreting books written in foreign laguages and about a people in ancient times, the main obstacle for today’s reader is overcoming how he or she has been conditioned to read about Jesus in the Bible.

In order to address this problem, it is important to read texts with a fresh mind and where possible to use the Bible to interpret itself. For example, where you read words or phrases applied to Jesus check how these same words and phrases are used elsewhere in the Bible.

If you do not think you have been conditioned to react in a certain way to words when they are applied to Jesus, then I suggest you do a short test.

First, ask yourself when did Jesus become the “begotten son of God”? If your answer is different to what is stated in Acts 13:33, then ask why did you think what you did?

Second, ask yourself what the term “son of man” means when it is applied to Jesus, and would it convey the same meaning if it was used about someone else in the Bible? Having answered this question, check for yourself whether this term is applied to someone other than Jesus, and if so who applied it to that person.


Using Mary’s question as an example

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, and told her that she would conceive and have a son. The angel spoke of a future event. (Lk 1:26-33)

Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (Lk 1:34)

Most readers have been led to believe Mary is saying, “But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?” In more recent times, many “translations” of the Bible have even taken it upon themselves to render Mary’s question this way.

If you think about it, this interpretation portrays Mary as either very naïve or a simpleton. It has her saying that because she is presently a virgin, she does not know how at some future time she can conceive and have a son.

In order to analyse why Mary asked the question she did, the first thing is to see what prompted Mary’s question.

The angel had just told Mary that this son, among other things, would be given the “throne of his father David”.

We know from Matthew’s gospel that Joseph was descended from David through Jeconiah, and from the book of Jeremiah that God had debarred this line from ever sitting upon the Davidic throne. (Mt 1:11, Jer 22:30) In other words, Joseph could not be the father of the child the angel had just spoken about. No wonder then that Mary asked the question she did.

Mary’s question is very similar to Zacharias’ question that also appears in Lk 1. Zacharias’ question had nothing to do with the mechanics of conception — and neither did Mary’s question!

This post is rather long, so I will not extend the analysis further. However, if you wish to see a detailed analysis of Lk 1, or how Lk 3:23 — when properly translated — names the father of Jesus, then click on

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index...d=21&Itemid=30

[TyRockwell]

Two things:
First, in Acts 13:33, Jesus was begotten of the Father when he became the first begotten from the dead, at his resurrection. But it was the second time Jesus was begotten. The first time was when he was born of Mary after being Fathered by the Holy Spirit.

Second, Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesus grew up in the house of David by being raised in Joseph of David's house, and supposedly Joseph's son.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to TyRockwell I simply say the disciples taught that:

The man Jesus of Nazareth was proclaimed by God as his only begotten or first born from the dead upon his resurrection:

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.”

The crucifixion / resurrection of God's anointed delegate was at the core of all that Paul preached. Paul preached nothing which even looked like trinity, virgin birth or incarnation.

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

1Tim 2:5. “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Rom 6:3. “Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death?

Rom 8:14. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

The disciples held Jesus up as the example that all people must emulate if they wish to enter the kingdom of God.

Allegorically John in his Gospel placed Jesus and the values he represented upon the stage of ETERNITY. The churches have misrepresented this concept as pre-existence.

Put in its plainest basic terms the disciples were saying that Jesus discharged the responsibilities to his creator God that Adam had failed so miserably to do. Those who live by Jesus' values will find life in the spirit and those who live by Adam's values will find only death.

So TyRockwell, please quote to me the NT text which says the first time Jesus became begotten of God was when he was born of Mary after being Fathered by the Holy Spirit.

Come on mate you need to remove those Pagan tinted glasses you read the Bible with.

= = = = = = = = = =

[TyRockwell]

Put in its plainest basic terms the disciples were saying that Jesus discharged the responsibilities to his creator God that Adam had failed so miserably to do.

Now you are saying Jesus was created!

Those who live by Jesus' values will find life in the spirit and those who live by Adam's values will find only death.

Now you are making eternal life and life in the Spirit a matter of living by values, in effect a matter of works. There is no redemption involved in your perspective.

So TyRockwell, please quote to me the NT text which says the first time Jesus became begotten of God was when he was born of Mary after being Fathered by the Holy Spirit.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He who believes in [trusts in, relies on, and clings faithfully to, AMP] him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:16-18

Jesus claimed to be the only begotten son of God. But his genealogy goes back to Adam, "the son of God." Adam was created. Jesus was not. He pre-existed with God and was God the Word before the foundation of the world. John 1:1-2

"Before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58

After his resurrection Jesus became "the first born of many brethren." He was the "first begotten from the dead." He had already been begotten of God before his death and resurrection.

While Jesus was made sin, on the cross, and until God's justice against the sin of the world was paid, Jesus was absolutely cut off from God. He had to be begotten again; this time from the dead.