Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[The Pixie]

Okay. Feel free to present your evidence Mark held to an adoptionist theology.

Mainly this:

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”

Compare to Psalm 2:

2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

Verse 7 looks to be a parallel to Mark 1:11, but I quote verse 2 as well to highlight the word "anointed", which is elsewhere translated as messiah, and so strengthens the parallel.

Bear in mind that Mark explicitly states that the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ was John the Baptist preparing the way, quickly followed by the baptism of Jesus. The gospel did not begin with Jesus' birth, according to Mark.

As mentioned earlier, the fact that Mark says his family thought him mad indicates no miraculous birth, or indeed anything miraculous at all until his baptism. Further, why would God incarnate even need to be baptised? Mark usually calls Jesus "rabbi" rather than "lord", because Mark was seeing Jesus as more human than divine.

By the way, there are hints of adoptionism in Paul's letters too (also written early of course):

Romans 1:3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David[b] according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Who says she didn't? I take it to be that the message was of an immediate nature and Mary was not married and knew that was a way's off.

Why suppose the wedding was a long way off?

Why suppose Mary thought the pregnancy would be so soon? If the author of Matthew is right, then God's sign to the King of Jerusalem that this kingdom would be fine (Isaiah 7) did not arrive until about 400 years (by which time it was under Roman rule!). And yet you want us believe that Mary thought the pregnancy would necessarily start within days?

Old age is one thing. Well beyond child-bearing years is another.

How old was she? The text says "both were advanced in years", which at first glance sounds like 70, but life expectancy was much lower back then (url=http://followingjesus.org/leader/context_life.htm]this website[/url] states 29 for a man), women were married much earlier. Elizabeth could reasonably have been forty.

But suppose she was ninety... What is your point exactly?

The problem with this is that there are no sources I know of that have Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy.

While I agree it was not a messianic prophecy, the author of Matthew disagrees, and I think most Christians would disagree with you.

Matthew's writing of it would in fact give charge to the idea that Jesus was illegitimate, something that he would want to avoid.

Apparently not, given that he choose to include it.

Jesus is the firstborn son of the family and as such, the responsibility of providing for the family falls next on Him. What is going on? Jesus is preaching so much that He and His disciples can't even eat. In fact, having disciples and providing for them would show that His family was not the first responsibility. The family would be thinking "How is He going to handle His obligations? Has He gone mad? He is bringing great shame on us." The consequences of His vocation were getting out of hand.

That makes sense.

Unless angels appeared to both his step-father and his mother before he was born, stating that Jesus was God incarnate, followed by a miraculous conception. Then they would expect him to start preaching, healing, casting out demons...

See that is the problem here. What you describe only makes sense if you are wrong.

It would be, but exorcisms at least were also done by others outside the Jesus movement. As for healing, sure He was healing, but in the midst of this healing, He was not able to provide for Himself and those close to Him. This was getting out of hand. He needed someone to take more charge.

Again, according to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, his parents had proof that he was God Incarnate.

Okay, maybe there was an issue with him not providing for them, but that is not their objection. They objected to him acting like a lunatic, by preaching, healing and casting out demons.

More. The saints in Scripture are painted in very real terms.

Just so you know, for a skeptic, inconsistencies makes it less convincing.

James Crossley is one who did his dissertation on the Gospel of Mark and why he dates it to the 40's. Maurice Casey in his own writing such as his book on Jesus mythicism agrees with Crossley in large part but offers even other reasons for holding an earlier date.

Thanks, I will check them out.

But I still do not know how this impinges on my argument.

If you think they did, feel free to present the evidence. My evidence is that Jews had a view of children who were born out of wedlock and you would not want to give any credibility to a Messiah who was born illegitimately. The last thing you'd want to do is to blame that on God Himself, especially for people who might already be skeptical of your claim. Finally, while the parallels are not exact, this could make some people think of what pagan deities did.

The author of Matthew chose to include it.

He was working from a text that did not include it (i.e, the Gospel of Mark). He has a track record of editing Mark to present a better view of Jesus (eg removing the verse about Jesus' family thinking him mad). He made a conscious decision to include the virgin birth. Therefore it was the author's opinion that the virgin birth presented a better view of Jesus.

[Abigail]

So why did she not understand how a virgin can get pregnant? If she had said; How can this be, I am not married? that would make sense. Unmarried women would not - in theory anyway - get pregnant. Virgins clearly do.

Luke 1:28 "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” Perhaps Mary took that as being that she should understand that she was pregnant, however she knew she was a virgin.

What sort of behaviour would make her think something was "going wrong" with the Son of God? Do you think he was ranting like a lunatic, frothing at the mouth, etc.? I ask because the "lunatic, liar or lord" thing is predicated on Jesus not doing that.

As implicated above Mary was constrained by her own assumptions in a lot of ways. The religious leaders were very suspicious of Jesus by then and perhaps Mary thought He was going to get Himself killed and then how could He be the one. The disciples make this same error when they do not want Jesus to return to Jerusalem before the crucifixion and He tells Peter to get behind Him. Another incidence which is of the same kind is when John, just before he is beheaded, sends messengers to Jesus asking if He is the one. You might thing What???, after John having baptized Jesus and saying he was not worthy to tie his laces. But really it is these things that make the accounts more believable because this is how people naturally operate, they get downcast and depressed when they are in adversity and do question themselves and others, people are also subject to their own assumptions and peer pressure as Mary and family seem to be here. Close family are often the ones who are pressured, by wider society, into reigning in a 'straying' member.

[tabibito]

But in the sixth month the angel, Gabriel, was sent to a city of Galilee by the name of Nazareth, to a virgin named Mary betrothed to a man named Joseph of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And he said to her, "Rejoice o favoured of the Lord, blessed are you among women", and at this she was troubled, wondering what kind of salutation this might be.

Up til this point, Mary is troubled by the salutation, and nothing more. It seems probable that Gabriel would not have manifested in the resplendent display of an angel. So Mary is met by someone who gives her a weird greeting, and naturally enough she finds it disconcerting. Then continuing:

And the angel said to her "Do not be afraid, you have indeed found favour with God" And you shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and you shall call him Jesus. He will be great and be called "son of the Most High" and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. And he will reign over the house of Jacob to the ages and his kingdom shall not end." But Mary said to him "How can this be, since I know no man.

It seems that Mary might have been of the opinion that pregnancy involves certain activity with a man.
Mary is informed that she will give birth to a mighty man of God, and no more than that.

On the face of it, "a son of God" would not indicate of itself indicate "messiah" - rumour has it that a number of prophets were considered to be sons of God.
He will rule over .... the house of Jacob - all of the Hebrew tribes. OK - the tribes will be reunited under a single king. Would Mary interpret that statement as indicating an itinerant Rabbi? Or would she, as all Hebrews of the time, be thinking in terms of a conquering warrior king? Would Gabriel's message have been kept in mind? What would Jesus' activities that people complained about indicate? NOT that he was taking the appropriate course?
His throne will endure forever - That promise doesn't indicate messiah, it was a standard promise made to kings who submitted themselves to God's commands, and one that was given to David and to Solomon (with codicils on both).

AND - the passage relating the family's response simply says "his own" ... Mary is not identified as taking part in that action. Brothers, brothers and sisters, even near relatives not being part of the "nuclear" family may have taken that action.


Following her query, Gabriel then informs her that the Holy Spirit will cause her to become pregnant.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Mainly this:

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”

Compare to Psalm 2:

2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.

Verse 7 looks to be a parallel to Mark 1:11, but I quote verse 2 as well to highlight the word "anointed", which is elsewhere translated as messiah, and so strengthens the parallel.

If all we had was the baptism, there might be a case for that, but there is far more in the Gospel of Mark, such as the forgiving of sins in Mark 2 as well as being Lord of the Sabbath and the phrase regularly of "I have come" which scholars like Gathercole take to refer to pre-existence.

Bear in mind that Mark explicitly states that the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ was John the Baptist preparing the way, quickly followed by the baptism of Jesus. The gospel did not begin with Jesus' birth, according to Mark.

Which depends on what is meant by Gospel at this point. For this part of Mark, I take it to refer to the life of Jesus from going into public ministry to the time of the resurrection.

As mentioned earlier, the fact that Mark says his family thought him mad indicates no miraculous birth, or indeed anything miraculous at all until his baptism. Further, why would God incarnate even need to be baptised? Mark usually calls Jesus "rabbi" rather than "lord", because Mark was seeing Jesus as more human than divine.

There was no response to what was said by me earlier on Jesus's family. As for the usage of rabbi, I can just as easily point to times where he is referred to as Lord, most interestingly by the Gentile woman, pointing to the blindness of the disciples, a theme Mark highlights.

By the way, there are hints of adoptionism in Paul's letters too (also written early of course):

Romans 1:3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David[b] according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

The idea of declare does not mean that He became the Son at that time but that event revealed Him to be the Son to the world.

Why suppose the wedding was a long way off?

Why suppose Mary thought the pregnancy would be so soon? If the author of Matthew is right, then God's sign to the King of Jerusalem that this kingdom would be fine (Isaiah 7) did not arrive until about 400 years (by which time it was under Roman rule!). And yet you want us believe that Mary thought the pregnancy would necessarily start within days?

Good grief. No one is saying that Matthew is saying the child in Isaiah was Jesus. Jesus is being said to be a reenactment of that. Why say the wedding was off?

Because we give the benefit of the doubt that Mary isn't a moron and knows what it takes to make a baby, especially since she says she knows not a man.

How old was she? The text says "both were advanced in years", which at first glance sounds like 70, but life expectancy was much lower back then (url=http://followingjesus.org/leader/context_life.htm]this website[/url] states 29 for a man), women were married much earlier. Elizabeth could reasonably have been forty.

Advanced in years would mean beyond the years of child-bearing. If you want something on life expectancy, I recommend McIver's book on Memory and the Synoptic Gospels.

But suppose she was ninety... What is your point exactly?

The point is this is a miraculous birth.

While I agree it was not a messianic prophecy, the author of Matthew disagrees, and I think most Christians would disagree with you.

I don't care if most Christians agree with me or not. Why should I? Matthew is not treating it as a prophecy in our modern understanding so much as a reenactment.

Apparently not, given that he choose to include it.

Unless as Instone-Brewer says, these facts were so well-known that something had to be said. If people were saying Jesus was illegitimate, something had to be said.

That makes sense.

Unless angels appeared to both his step-father and his mother before he was born, stating that Jesus was God incarnate, followed by a miraculous conception. Then they would expect him to start preaching, healing, casting out demons...

See that is the problem here. What you describe only makes sense if you are wrong.

And what did everyone expect the Messiah to do? Note the prophecy that you speak of largely comes from Luke, and even Luke has Mary not understanding what is going on. If they thought He was the Messiah, they would have expected Him to conquer Rome.

Again, according to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, his parents had proof that he was God Incarnate.

Perhaps, or perhaps again they didn't understand.

Okay, maybe there was an issue with him not providing for them, but that is not their objection. They objected to him acting like a lunatic, by preaching, healing and casting out demons.

And because of all that, he was so thronged he couldn't even eat. Things were getting out of hand. That was embarrassing.

Just so you know, for a skeptic, inconsistencies makes it less convincing.

Thanks, I will check them out.

But I still do not know how this impinges on my argument.

Your claim looked to me to argue to Mark being late.

The author of Matthew chose to include it.

He was working from a text that did not include it (i.e, the Gospel of Mark). He has a track record of editing Mark to present a better view of Jesus (eg removing the verse about Jesus' family thinking him mad). He made a conscious decision to include the virgin birth. Therefore it was the author's opinion that the virgin birth presented a better view of Jesus.

This does not follow. Matthew presents data also to present viewpoints, such as the guard at the tomb. Matthew is trying in my opinion to set the facts straight about Jesus's birth.

[The Pixie]

If all we had was the baptism, there might be a case for that, but there is far more in the Gospel of Mark, such as the forgiving of sins in Mark 2 as well as being Lord of the Sabbath and the phrase regularly of "I have come" which scholars like Gathercole take to refer to pre-existence.

Can God's adopted son not forgive sins? As Jesus says in Mark, he had that authority from God:

Mark 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—

With regards to the Sabbath:

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

This reads to me like it is invoking Jesus' humanity, not his Godhead.

Given that the Sabbath was made for man, so if follows that the man God has adopted as his son is Lord of the Sabbath.
vs.
Given that the Sabbath was made for man, so if follows that God Incarnate is Lord of the Sabbath.

Sure God Incarnate can be Lord of the Sabbath, but it does not follow from the previous statement.

Which depends on what is meant by Gospel at this point. For this part of Mark, I take it to refer to the life of Jesus from going into public ministry to the time of the resurrection.

That is certainly possible.

With regards to "I have come", would you say that this indicates Isaiah came from heaven? Where was he sent from if not?

Isaiah 61:1The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;[a]
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

This looks to be a literary style for prophets; they are "sent" from God. In Jeremiah too we see that God "sends" prophets to his people (or at least false prophets are not sent from him):

Jeremiah 14:14 And the Lord said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.

There was no response to what was said by me earlier on Jesus's family.

You mean when you said "The family would be thinking "How is He going to handle His obligations? Has He gone mad? He is bringing great shame on us." "?
I said:

That makes sense.

Unless angels appeared to both his step-father and his mother before he was born, stating that Jesus was God incarnate, followed by a miraculous conception. Then they would expect him to start preaching, healing, casting out demons...

See that is the problem here. What you describe only makes sense if you are wrong.

What I mean here is that what you say is reasonable if Joseph and Mary did not think Jesus was God Incarnate. If they thought he was a normal man, then they would expect him to behave like a normal man, and they would expect him to assume the responsibilities that that entails.

But the problem is that (according to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew) both Joseph and Mary knew that this was not a ordinary man. He was God Incarnate. In what sense would being chosen to birth the incarnation of God bring shame on the family? How could a pious Jew impose obligations on God himself? How could a pious Jew question if God himself was mad?

As for the usage of rabbi, I can just as easily point to times where he is referred to as Lord, most interestingly by the Gentile woman, pointing to the blindness of the disciples, a theme Mark highlights.

Fair enough.

The idea of declare does not mean that He became the Son at that time but that event revealed Him to be the Son to the world.

That is certainly one way to interpret it. Why should we think it is the correct way?

Good grief. No one is saying that Matthew is saying the child in Isaiah was Jesus. Jesus is being said to be a reenactment of that. Why say the wedding was off?

Hmm, a lot of Christians think Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy of Jesus. It did not take much Googling to find these:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/chart...Prophecies.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.co...ophecies.shtml

But let us see what the author of Matthew said:

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).

So it was to fulfill what was spoken specifically by a prophet... Hmm, I think I might be missing something here. Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you think Isaiah was prophesising, and exatly what Matthew thought about it.

Because we give the benefit of the doubt that Mary isn't a moron and knows what it takes to make a baby, especially since she says she knows not a man.

Great, I am assuming that too.

Advanced in years would mean beyond the years of child-bearing. If you want something on life expectancy, I recommend McIver's book on Memory and the Synoptic Gospels.

You are reading more into it than is there. You are assuming "advanced in years" would mean beyond the years of child-bearing because you want to read this as another miracle.

The reality is that there is no specific age at which all women are suddenly incapable of having children. It varies. It is entirely possible that Elizabeth happened to be later than most women.

The point is this is a miraculous birth.

Oh, I thought you were trying to relate it to the virgin birth discussion.

I don't care if most Christians agree with me or not.

Odd. I thought the whole point of Deeper Waters was to persuade Christians of your views. What is the point of your blog again?

Why should I? Matthew is not treating it as a prophecy in our modern understanding so much as a reenactment.

As I said before, I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you mean here.

Unless as Instone-Brewer says, these facts were so well-known that something had to be said. If people were saying Jesus was illegitimate, something had to be said.

Whether there were accusations of illegitimacy at the time the author of Matthew was writing was probably unrelated to whether Jesus was illegitimate.

Do we have any reason to suppose there were allegations of illegitimacy? Only that the virgin birth was included in Matthew and Luke. It is all a bit circular.

And what did everyone expect the Messiah to do? Note the prophecy that you speak of largely comes from Luke, and even Luke has Mary not understanding what is going on. If they thought He was the Messiah, they would have expected Him to conquer Rome.

Not sure what prophecy you are referring to here.

There is a difference between a messiah and God Incarnate, and you seem to be conflating the two. The messiah the Jews were expecting would be a man, not God. He would be King of the Jews in the same way David was (and so from David's line), and he would free them from the Romans. David was not God Incarnate, and the messiah was not expected to be either.

Matthew does not say Jesus will be the King of the Jews, he does not say Jesus is the expected messiah.

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Perhaps, or perhaps again they didn't understand.

So your scenerio is that they did not understand Jesus' role in God's plan, and their faith was so meagre they assumed Jesus must be out of his mind when he was preaching, healing and castng out demons?

Seriously, think this through. They were selected presumably because their faith was strong. Even if they did not understand, they should have trusted God to know better (think about what Job went through, and he did not loose his faith).

And because of all that, he was so thronged he couldn't even eat. Things were getting out of hand. That was embarrassing.

If angels appeared to you and told you your son would be especially favoured by God, would you be embarassed when it turned out that he was?

Your claim looked to me to argue to Mark being late.

Well let us suppose Mark was written in AD 40. How does that impinge on the discussion?

This does not follow. Matthew presents data also to present viewpoints, such as the guard at the tomb. Matthew is trying in my opinion to set the facts straight about Jesus's birth.

The guard on the tomb looks to me like an addition to counter the claim that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. A long way from Matthew adding something that puts Jesus in a bad light. That said, it could be a parallal in that both were added to counter accusations of the time, one about body snatching and one about illegitamacy.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Okay. I was away at a conference all week and my time will still be limited for the next four weeks.

Can God's adopted son not forgive sins? As Jesus says in Mark, he had that authority from God:

Mark 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—

With regards to the Sabbath:

Obviously. What would you have Him say? That He doesn't need the Father to forgive sins? That the Father plays no role? What is going on is Jesus is the go-between and this is a striking charge. Forgiveness was seen as inseparable from the Temple. You had to have that go through the cultic system of the day. Jesus is claiming to be greater than the Temple where YHWH Himself was said to dwell. Jesus is indeed making a monumental claim right there that His opponents recognized.

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

This reads to me like it is invoking Jesus' humanity, not his Godhead.

Given that the Sabbath was made for man, so if follows that the man God has adopted as his son is Lord of the Sabbath.
vs.
Given that the Sabbath was made for man, so if follows that God Incarnate is Lord of the Sabbath.

Sure God Incarnate can be Lord of the Sabbath, but it does not follow from the previous statement.

Visiting the in-laws on Labor Day this actually came up and I just don't see the idea of humanity being in play. The Pharisees could have said "Yes, and we are the humans in charge of the law here and we know what it says." Son of Man is also a key phrase in the Gospels and one that interestingly, barely shows up in the NT outside of the Gospels and is not really used by the early church which makes it more likely to have come from the lips of Jesus Himself. It does not speak of His humanity so much as His deity. Ben Witherington has even argued that Son of God would speak more of humanity and Son of Man would speak more of deity. Jesus is instead making a pronouncement on the Law and ignoring the tradition. He never even cites any rabbi at all.

That is certainly possible.

With regards to "I have come", would you say that this indicates Isaiah came from heaven? Where was he sent from if not?

Isaiah 61:1The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;[a]
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

This looks to be a literary style for prophets; they are "sent" from God. In Jeremiah too we see that God "sends" prophets to his people (or at least false prophets are not sent from him):

Jeremiah 14:14 And the Lord said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.

Saying I was sent and saying "I have come" are two different things. When Jesus says I have come, there is a message of pre-existence. Again, Gathercole has likely done the most work on this.

You mean when you said "The family would be thinking "How is He going to handle His obligations? Has He gone mad? He is bringing great shame on us." "?
I said:

That makes sense.

Unless angels appeared to both his step-father and his mother before he was born, stating that Jesus was God incarnate, followed by a miraculous conception. Then they would expect him to start preaching, healing, casting out demons...



See that is the problem here. What you describe only makes sense if you are wrong.

What I mean here is that what you say is reasonable if Joseph and Mary did not think Jesus was God Incarnate. If they thought he was a normal man, then they would expect him to behave like a normal man, and they would expect him to assume the responsibilities that that entails.

But the problem is that (according to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew) both Joseph and Mary knew that this was not a ordinary man. He was God Incarnate. In what sense would being chosen to birth the incarnation of God bring shame on the family? How could a pious Jew impose obligations on God himself? How could a pious Jew question if God himself was mad?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ilpage_o01_s00

Fair enough.

That is certainly one way to interpret it. Why should we think it is the correct way?

I would go with what are generally agreed to be the earliest sources, the Pauline epistles, which I think quite clearly include Jesus in the divine identity such as in the Aramaic sayings like the Maranatha Anathema in Aramaic and the including of Jesus in the divine identity in the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 and with the hymn in Philippians. When one passage can go both ways, we go to clearer passages.

Hmm, a lot of Christians think Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy of Jesus. It did not take much Googling to find these:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/chart...Prophecies.htm
http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.co...ophecies.shtml

But let us see what the author of Matthew said:

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).

So it was to fulfill what was spoken specifically by a prophet... Hmm, I think I might be missing something here. Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you think Isaiah was prophesising, and exatly what Matthew thought about it.

First off, I know what other Christians say, but I am in no sense obligated to defend it if I think they're wrong. When I see fulfill, while it can mean something happening that was prophesied, I also think it points to reenactment as well, which is how the Essene community saw themselves. They thought promises of Scripture that had been fulfilled were happening to them as well. It's a style of interpretation that is called pesher where the person looks back and says "As it was going on in those days, so is is in these days?" Jesus for instance says in Matthew to the Pharisees that "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you." Well Isaiah was not thinking about the Pharisees. He was thinking about another group. Jesus saw a parallel and that parallel would in fact in His day give Him honor for seeing a match in Scripture. The best work on this kind of thing is Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period.

You are reading more into it than is there. You are assuming "advanced in years" would mean beyond the years of child-bearing because you want to read this as another miracle.

1:7 No children … both well along in years. The Greek term “no children” (steira) is used of Sarah (Gen 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (29:31), and Samson’s mother (Judg 13:2–3; cf. also 1 Sam 1:5). “Well advanced in years” is used in Gen 18:11 of Sarah. The mention of Zechariah and Elizabeth’s childlessness and their being past childbearing age points to the human impossibility of the coming events and heightens the miraculous character of God’s intervention in their son’s birth. Luke assumed that his readers would recall similar situations in the OT in which God blessed the barren with a son who was uniquely called to fulfill a divine task.

Robert H. Stein, Luke (vol. 24; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 74.

Luke uses καί, but not in an adversative sense, hence it does not mean “and yet.” He is stating the pertinent facts regarding Zacharias and Elisabeth without putting them into relation to each other. One fact is the childlessness, which is due, not to the death of children, but to Elisabeth’s being “barren,” unable to conceive. Καθότι is a good Greek word: “according to what.” It is not really causal but came to be used in that sense (R. 964) as it is here. The second fact is the advanced age of this couple, all hope of ever having a child is long gone, has become, humanly speaking, an impossibility. Note the periphrastic past perfect προβεβηκότες ἦσαν, “they had gone forward.” Although Luke is retelling an Aramaic story, and the Aramaic original is apparent, he yet tells it with many touches of good Greek.

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 40–41.

If it's an assumption, I'd say I'm in good company.

The reality is that there is no specific age at which all women are suddenly incapable of having children. It varies. It is entirely possible that Elizabeth happened to be later than most women.

Sure it varies, but this is like saying there's no specific age a child attains self-awareness. It varies, but most of us would say by the time you're thirteen you should have it. The age a woman ceases being able to give birth can vary, but I suspect most of us don't worry about women in nursing homes getting pregnant.

Oh, I thought you were trying to relate it to the virgin birth discussion.

The way I see them together is both of them involve God orchestrating events for the Messiah and His forerunner.

Odd. I thought the whole point of Deeper Waters was to persuade Christians of your views. What is the point of your blog again?

Having other Christians agree with me would be nice, but it is not necessitated. If I think something is true, if others don't agree, that does not change the fact that I hold it to be true and do try to convince others.

As I said before, I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you mean here.

Done above.

Whether there were accusations of illegitimacy at the time the author of Matthew was writing was probably unrelated to whether Jesus was illegitimate.

John's Gospel indicates that there were. John 8 has that being an accusation of Jesus. Why would Matthew even risk opening that door?

Do we have any reason to suppose there were allegations of illegitimacy? Only that the virgin birth was included in Matthew and Luke. It is all a bit circular.

I'd point to John 8 again.

Not sure what prophecy you are referring to here.

I am thinking of the angelic announcements.

There is a difference between a messiah and God Incarnate, and you seem to be conflating the two. The messiah the Jews were expecting would be a man, not God. He would be King of the Jews in the same way David was (and so from David's line), and he would free them from the Romans. David was not God Incarnate, and the messiah was not expected to be either.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I've been saying the parents would know Jesus was the Messiah, but God incarnate is indeed thought to be something different.

Matthew does not say Jesus will be the King of the Jews, he does not say Jesus is the expected messiah.

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Correct. Matthew is stating what the Messiah will do right at the start, but he does believe Jesus is the Messiah? Why? Because the very first verse of the Gospel is about the genealogy of Jesus the Christ.

So your scenerio is that they did not understand Jesus' role in God's plan, and their faith was so meagre they assumed Jesus must be out of his mind when he was preaching, healing and castng out demons?

Yep. Everyone thought the Messiah was to deliver from Rome. I contend even the disciples thought that when they entered Jerusalem.

Seriously, think this through. They were selected presumably because their faith was strong. Even if they did not understand, they should have trusted God to know better (think about what Job went through, and he did not loose his faith).

Should have does not mean that they did. Their faith was strong yes, but they were also just as human.

If angels appeared to you and told you your son would be especially favoured by God, would you be embarassed when it turned out that he was?

This is talking about public shaming. If they thought that Jesus was to be the Messiah, well this stuff with demons and such is distracting Him from the real enemy of Rome.

Well let us suppose Mark was written in AD 40. How does that impinge on the discussion?

I believe it was asking if the account was late. If it showed up in the lifetime of Mary, that could change things.

The guard on the tomb looks to me like an addition to counter the claim that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. A long way from Matthew adding something that puts Jesus in a bad light. That said, it could be a parallal in that both were added to counter accusations of the time, one about body snatching and one about illegitamacy.

An interesting aspect that I think could increase the likelihood of the account being accurate is Matthew adding "to this day." Why would any Jew believe the account if they could say "Psssh. Never heard that."?

[Adrift]

Should have does not mean that they did. Their faith was strong yes, but they were also just as human.

O ye of little faith seems to be an oft repeated expression of Jesus about his disciples (and, as previously mentioned, outside of his mother, his family (or at least his brothers) didn't believe his was the Messiah till his resurrection).

[The Pixie]

Okay. I was away at a conference all week and my time will still be limited for the next four weeks.

No problem. I will take my time replying then.

Obviously. What would you have Him say? That He doesn't need the Father to forgive sins? That the Father plays no role? What is going on is Jesus is the go-between and this is a striking charge. Forgiveness was seen as inseparable from the Temple. You had to have that go through the cultic system of the day. Jesus is claiming to be greater than the Temple where YHWH Himself was said to dwell. Jesus is indeed making a monumental claim right there that His opponents recognized.

I guess it is like the head of a company. If you are his secretary, he might give you the authority to do some of his duties, such as replying to certain e-mails. Having that authority does not make you the boss.

Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, but that does not make him God.

What would I have him say?

Alt-Mark 2:10 But that you may know that I am God Incarnate and so can forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—

Visiting the in-laws on Labor Day this actually came up and I just don't see the idea of humanity being in play. The Pharisees could have said "Yes, and we are the humans in charge of the law here and we know what it says." Son of Man is also a key phrase in the Gospels and one that interestingly, barely shows up in the NT outside of the Gospels and is not really used by the early church which makes it more likely to have come from the lips of Jesus Himself. It does not speak of His humanity so much as His deity. Ben Witherington has even argued that Son of God would speak more of humanity and Son of Man would speak more of deity. Jesus is instead making a pronouncement on the Law and ignoring the tradition. He never even cites any rabbi at all.

You seem to have missed my point; perhaps I was not clear.

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Verse 28 here appears to be a consequence of verse 27. Verse 27 is talking about man, not God. Therefore verse 28 is making an inference about a man, not about a God.

Saying I was sent and saying "I have come" are two different things. When Jesus says I have come, there is a message of pre-existence. Again, Gathercole has likely done the most work on this.

It is a fair point, and ultimately I do not know. I did a Bible search, and found some Old Testament precedent:

Numbers 22:38 Balaam said to Balak, “Behold, I have come to you! Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.”

Not a prophet, but we still see the phrase:

2 Samuel 14:15 Now I have come to say this to my lord the king because the people have made me afraid, and your servant thought, ‘I will speak to the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant.

2 Samuel 19:20 For your servant knows that I have sinned. Therefore, behold, I have come this day, the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king.”

Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.

I was not able to find any instances in Mark. Can you cite a couple of verses?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ilpage_o01_s00

Fair enough.

Your link takes me to a page selling Pokemon toys. I would love to think there was some deep significance, but I am afraid it eludes me.

I would go with what are generally agreed to be the earliest sources, the Pauline epistles, which I think quite clearly include Jesus in the divine identity such as in the Aramaic sayings like the Maranatha Anathema in Aramaic and the including of Jesus in the divine identity in the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 and with the hymn in Philippians. When one passage can go both ways, we go to clearer passages.

Not sure I quite follow. The Maranatha Anathema says, I think, "Our lord has come". Paul considered Jesus lord, but that does not imply he considered Jesus to be God.

1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Here Paul seems to differentiate between God and Jesus. Yes, Jesus is lord, but not God. There is only one God, and it is not Jesus.

Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Not so sure of this, I will admit. The bit "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name" sounds adoptionist, but other parts certainly do not. I am aware that some scholars date this letter relatively late (eg here and it is possible Paul's theology changed to a less adoptionist position (which is certainly what the Gospel of Matthew reflects some time later). I will admit to find it less likely Paul was an adoptionist in view of this text.

First off, I know what other Christians say, but I am in no sense obligated to defend it if I think they're wrong. When I see fulfill, while it can mean something happening that was prophesied, I also think it points to reenactment as well, which is how the Essene community saw themselves. They thought promises of Scripture that had been fulfilled were happening to them as well. It's a style of interpretation that is called pesher where the person looks back and says "As it was going on in those days, so is is in these days?" Jesus for instance says in Matthew to the Pharisees that "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you." Well Isaiah was not thinking about the Pharisees. He was thinking about another group. Jesus saw a parallel and that parallel would in fact in His day give Him honor for seeing a match in Scripture. The best work on this kind of thing is Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period.

Okay.

1:7 No children … both well along in years. The Greek term “no children” (steira) is used of Sarah (Gen 11:30), Rebekah (25:21), Rachel (29:31), and Samson’s mother (Judg 13:2–3; cf. also 1 Sam 1:5). “Well advanced in years” is used in Gen 18:11 of Sarah. The mention of Zechariah and Elizabeth’s childlessness and their being past childbearing age points to the human impossibility of the coming events and heightens the miraculous character of God’s intervention in their son’s birth. Luke assumed that his readers would recall similar situations in the OT in which God blessed the barren with a son who was uniquely called to fulfill a divine task.

Where do you get "their being past childbearing age" from?

Let us not forget that Luke's geneaology is traced via Joseph. And why is it in chapter three?

Marcion had the Gospel of Luke as the basis for his own gospel, but his version was missing the first two chapters (among other things). His version would start very much like Mark's Gospel, and had the genealogy right at the start. Did Marcion remove the first two chapters? Or did some unknown author subsequently prepend the two chapters to add a virgin birth?

This is not wild speculation on my part:
https://sites.google.com/site/inglis...apters-1-and-2
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/barnes12.htm

The simplest way to account for Elizabeth's pregnancy is to consider it to be as mythical as the virgin birth. The virgin birth reenacts Isaiah 7:14, while Elizabeth's pregnancy reenacts the similar situations in the OT to which you allude. Neither actually happened, and quite possibly neither were in the original Luke.

Certainly neither were in the early accounts.

Sure it varies, but this is like saying there's no specific age a child attains self-awareness. It varies, but most of us would say by the time you're thirteen you should have it. The age a woman ceases being able to give birth can vary, but I suspect most of us don't worry about women in nursing homes getting pregnant.

Sure. So was Elizabeth forty when she was advanced in years? Or eighty?

The way I see them together is both of them involve God orchestrating events for the Messiah and His forerunner.

Which I see as good reason for the myths to appear.

John's Gospel indicates that there were. John 8 has that being an accusation of Jesus. Why would Matthew even risk opening that door?

Jesus was also accused of being a Samaritan and having a devil (verse 48). Can we assume these were the rumours of the time? Jesus says the Pharisees were the offspring of the devil. Can we assume that was so? Seems equally plausible that they were merely trading insults.
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passa...egitimate.aspx

And what did everyone expect the Messiah to do? Note the prophecy that you speak of largely comes from Luke, and even Luke has Mary not understanding what is going on. If they thought He was the Messiah, they would have expected Him to conquer Rome.

Not sure what prophecy you are referring to here.

I am thinking of the angelic announcements.

Okay.

So they would expect what? The first thing the Rome-conquering messiah would have to do is raise an army, and to do that he would have to show he was from God, and to do that, he would have to perform signs, such as healing and casting out demons, as well as preaching to people.

What do you think they expected? That he would start up a resistance cell and engage in guerrilla warfare?

Actually, I think it's the other way around. I've been saying the parents would know Jesus was the Messiah, but God incarnate is indeed thought to be something different.

But Jesus was not the messiah, not in the way the Jews of the time understood the term, so when you say "the parents would know Jesus was the Messiah" do you mean they believed he was the man destined to be King of the Jews, to liberate them from the Romans?

If so, then that supports my position. The King of the Jews was adopted by God as his son, as Psalm 2 makes clear (see also 2 Samuel 7).

Should have does not mean that they did. Their faith was strong yes, but they were also just as human.

So Mary was favoured by god, presumably because of her faith, she then talks to an angel who tells her her son will be the messiah, and she then conceives whilst still a virgin, but when her son grows up and starts preaching, healing and casting out demons, her faith is so fragile that she thinks he is mad. Because, hey, she is only human right.

Plenty of other people believed Jesus at that time, even without seeing the angel. Clearly they had a stronger faith than Mary, right?

So why did God choose Mary again?

This is talking about public shaming. If they thought that Jesus was to be the Messiah, well this stuff with demons and such is distracting Him from the real enemy of Rome.

Ah, I see. Pushing parents. Come on Jesus, stopping messing around healing and casting out demons. I want Rome conquered by the time your thirty, or there'll be trouble.

What do you think they were expecting Jesus to do as the first few steps to overthrowing Rome?

I believe it was asking if the account was late. If it showed up in the lifetime of Mary, that could change things.

How so?

An interesting aspect that I think could increase the likelihood of the account being accurate is Matthew adding "to this day." Why would any Jew believe the account if they could say "Psssh. Never heard that."?

On the other hand, how did the story of body snatching disciples gain traction if it was already established that there were guards on the tomb?

[tabibito]

Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This one is definitive (and surprisingly, the translation is actually valid). There are very few points in Paul's epistles that focus on Christ as God, the main issue for Paul being "Christ the man." A couple of other passages (or maybe just one) identify the Holy Spirit as both the Spirit of Christ and Spirit of God, but that's about it.
None of the epistles is written for new believers - the inclusion of such elementary principles as the existence of Christ prior to his conception and his deity would be an exercise in redundancy. Even the reference in Philippians 2 above is not about Christ, simply drawing on the example set by even the supreme being himself.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Not sure if you want to continue, but I have some free time now.

I guess it is like the head of a company. If you are his secretary, he might give you the authority to do some of his duties, such as replying to certain e-mails. Having that authority does not make you the boss.

Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, but that does not make him God.

There is still a radical claim being made by Jesus. There was forgiveness going on in His person apart from the temple apparatus and He never prays that God forgives the sin. He just says it is forgiven and then heals the man both.

What would I have him say?

Alt-Mark 2:10 But that you may know that I am God Incarnate and so can forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—

Which would be even more problematic. If the Trinity is true, then how it is revealed would have to be something delicate. After all, if Jesus says "I am God incarnate" then it would be a question of asking "Are you the Father? What does this mean?" At the same time, with the peasant folk, it's doubtful He'd go into full Nicene language.

You seem to have missed my point; perhaps I was not clear.

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Verse 28 here appears to be a consequence of verse 27. Verse 27 is talking about man, not God. Therefore verse 28 is making an inference about a man, not about a God.

Sure, but who is making the pronouncement? Why would Jesus be saying that man is Lord of the Sabbath? The Pharisees could just as well say "And we are men so we are Lords of the Sabbath."

It is a fair point, and ultimately I do not know. I did a Bible search, and found some Old Testament precedent:

Numbers 22:38 Balaam said to Balak, “Behold, I have come to you! Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.”

Not a prophet, but we still see the phrase:

2 Samuel 14:15 Now I have come to say this to my lord the king because the people have made me afraid, and your servant thought, ‘I will speak to the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant.

2 Samuel 19:20 For your servant knows that I have sinned. Therefore, behold, I have come this day, the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king.”

Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.

The language of "I have come" refers to traveling a distance in that case. Jesus speaks it without referring to travel in that sense.

I was not able to find any instances in Mark. Can you cite a couple of verses?

Mark 1:38 has the first instance. Mark 2 has it with Jesus saying he came to call sinners to repentance and not the righteous.

Your link takes me to a page selling Pokemon toys. I would love to think there was some deep significance, but I am afraid it eludes me.

I must have just got done getting a gift for the wife and the copy didn't work and I missed it. Unfortunately, I have no idea what I was going to post now.

Not sure I quite follow. The Maranatha Anathema says, I think, "Our lord has come". Paul considered Jesus lord, but that does not imply he considered Jesus to be God.

The saying is Aramaic. It is paralleled with a blessing and waits for the one who is to come, which for an OT Jew would be YHWH since it's about judgment, but Paul takes it to refer to Jesus and this is an early tradition.

1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Here Paul seems to differentiate between God and Jesus. Yes, Jesus is lord, but not God. There is only one God, and it is not Jesus.

Of course he differentiates. Paul is not saying Jesus is the Father, but by the logic presented, we could just as well say "There's one Lord and it is not YHWH." Paul would be aghast at the thought that YHWH is not Lord. Instead, Paul is taking both names and applying them in the Shema. Lord from the Shema applies to Jesus. God applies to YHWH. Both are titles of deity in the Shema.

Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Not so sure of this, I will admit. The bit "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name" sounds adoptionist, but other parts certainly do not. I am aware that some scholars date this letter relatively late (eg here and it is possible Paul's theology changed to a less adoptionist position (which is certainly what the Gospel of Matthew reflects some time later). I will admit to find it less likely Paul was an adoptionist in view of this text.

I see nothing to show that it's late by comparison. Many other letters date to just a few years earlier. Galatians also shows that Paul never changed on the essentials of what He teached, and the identity of Jesus would certainly be included. I also do think some of this could be to contrast Jesus with the first Adam, but the name above every name is certainly not adoptionist. In Isaiah 45:23, YHWH says that to Him every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, yet in 42:8 He declares He will not share His glory with another.

Where do you get "their being past childbearing age" from?

The language is cast in light of other hopeless cases in the OT and the reader would have thought of a couple like Abraham and Sarah by the similar language.

Let us not forget that Luke's geneaology is traced via Joseph. And why is it in chapter three?

I don't see the importance of it being through Joseph, but it's in chapter three because that marks the beginning of Jesus's ministry and I think by going back to Adam, Luke is showing that Jesus is for all men.

Marcion had the Gospel of Luke as the basis for his own gospel, but his version was missing the first two chapters (among other things). His version would start very much like Mark's Gospel, and had the genealogy right at the start. Did Marcion remove the first two chapters? Or did some unknown author subsequently prepend the two chapters to add a virgin birth?

This is not wild speculation on my part:
https://sites.google.com/site/inglis...apters-1-and-2
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/barnes12.htm

Aside from Marcion, we have zero textual evidence that the first two chapters do not belong. Without hard textual evidence, I find such cases to be quite weak really. Could there have been a proto-Luke? Perhaps, but I do not think we can know that and like Q, I view it with suspicion.

The simplest way to account for Elizabeth's pregnancy is to consider it to be as mythical as the virgin birth. The virgin birth reenacts Isaiah 7:14, while Elizabeth's pregnancy reenacts the similar situations in the OT to which you allude. Neither actually happened, and quite possibly neither were in the original Luke.

Certainly neither were in the early accounts.

This is built on your presuppositions that I do not accept. Again, I find it would have been easier for the church to not discuss the origins of Jesus, but apparently rumors were flying....

Sure. So was Elizabeth forty when she was advanced in years? Or eighty?

We don't know for sure. All I can say is no one was expecting this.

Which I see as good reason for the myths to appear.

But this would make the account even more shameful. As has been said, John should have known better as well.

Jesus was also accused of being a Samaritan and having a devil (verse 48). Can we assume these were the rumours of the time? Jesus says the Pharisees were the offspring of the devil. Can we assume that was so? Seems equally plausible that they were merely trading insults.
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passa...egitimate.aspx

Yes. We also can be sure people back then knew how to do math and knew when Mary should have given birth after her marriage to Joseph, especially since everything was public.

Okay.

So they would expect what? The first thing the Rome-conquering messiah would have to do is raise an army, and to do that he would have to show he was from God, and to do that, he would have to perform signs, such as healing and casting out demons, as well as preaching to people.

What do you think they expected? That he would start up a resistance cell and engage in guerrilla warfare?

The Egyptian had tried. Thaddeus had tried. These kinds of things were happening. It would seem unthinkable to think that God was reigning as King and Rome controlled Israel.

But Jesus was not the messiah, not in the way the Jews of the time understood the term, so when you say "the parents would know Jesus was the Messiah" do you mean they believed he was the man destined to be King of the Jews, to liberate them from the Romans?

If so, then that supports my position. The King of the Jews was adopted by God as his son, as Psalm 2 makes clear (see also 2 Samuel 7).

That could be consistent with adoptionism, but it's also consistent with my position. I do not know for sure they understood who He was entirely and they could have very well thought Rome was about to be ousted.

So Mary was favoured by god, presumably because of her faith, she then talks to an angel who tells her her son will be the messiah, and she then conceives whilst still a virgin, but when her son grows up and starts preaching, healing and casting out demons, her faith is so fragile that she thinks he is mad. Because, hey, she is only human right.

Yes. She thinks that Jesus as a good and honorable Jew should also be seeking to care for His family. How can He if this stuff is going on?

Plenty of other people believed Jesus at that time, even without seeing the angel. Clearly they had a stronger faith than Mary, right?

Some did. We don't know what they believed. When they believed He was the Messiah, did that mean they believed everything Christians would believe later? Not necessarily. They believed that He could heal them.

So why did God choose Mary again?

Because despite her flaws, she did have great faith.

Ah, I see. Pushing parents. Come on Jesus, stopping messing around healing and casting out demons. I want Rome conquered by the time your thirty, or there'll be trouble.

What do you think they were expecting Jesus to do as the first few steps to overthrowing Rome?

Again, perhaps what the Egyptian or Thaddeus was said to have done.

How so?

Mary would be there to set the record straight and people who knew her could also have spoken up.

On the other hand, how did the story of body snatching disciples gain traction if it was already established that there were guards on the tomb?

Because something had to be said to explain the empty tomb.

[Abigail]

Because despite her flaws, she did have great faith.

Mary was called 'blessed' (by Elizabeth, Luke 1:45 )for believing what had been told to her. Elizabeth is speaking in the Spirit, Luke 1:24 when she says this. However when the angel came to Mary he just calls her 'favoured one', Luke 1:28, and this before she even has the chance to believe. Obviously Mary was a devout and believing Jew but can we say she was favoured on account of her faith? She was 'blessed' on account of her faith. Perhaps she was favoured because she was just favoured. Do you see a distinction or am I just splitting hairs?

When You compare Zechariah's reaction to the news that he and Elizabeth were to have a son, to Mary's reaction to the news of Jesus, on the surface they both seem to disbelieve:

Zech: "How will I know this is so? For I am old."
Mary:"How can this be, since I am a virgin"

And yet Mary is called 'blessed' for believing, so it must be that Mary is not disbelieving that it will happen but rather asking how it is that a virgin can be pregnant.

[The Pixie]

There is still a radical claim being made by Jesus. There was forgiveness going on in His person apart from the temple apparatus and He never prays that God forgives the sin. He just says it is forgiven and then heals the man both.

Claiming to have the authority to forgive was radical. No need to suppose he was any more radical than that.

Which would be even more problematic. If the Trinity is true, then how it is revealed would have to be something delicate. After all, if Jesus says "I am God incarnate" then it would be a question of asking "Are you the Father? What does this mean?" At the same time, with the peasant folk, it's doubtful He'd go into full Nicene language.

Sure, because people back then were dumb and ignorant, right? So much so that God himself would have difficulty being understood. Sure he could turn water into wine and walk on water, but explain who he is in full Nicene language? No way.

If the trinity is true, we would expect God to have made it clear from the start, with Adam. We would expect God's chosen people to be familiar with the full Nicene language (under another name I guess).

On the other hand, if the trinity was a concept invented by man after or around the end of the first century, what we would expect is no clear reference in it to anything written before that.

Sure, but who is making the pronouncement? Why would Jesus be saying that man is Lord of the Sabbath? The Pharisees could just as well say "And we are men so we are Lords of the Sabbath."

Okay, I am slightly changing my position. Thinking about it, I would say Jesus is saying "son of man" to mean any person, not specifically himself. See Numbers 23:19, Job 16:21 or Psalm 146:3, where it is used to contrast a generic person with God, just as Jesus is doing here.

He is not saying that Jesus is lord of the Sabbath, but that we all are. The Sabbath does not rule man, rather man rules over the Sabbath. Notice how this follows from the previous verse:

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

The language of "I have come" refers to traveling a distance in that case. Jesus speaks it without referring to travel in that sense.

So make your case. Show that Numbers 22:38, 2 Samuel 14:15, 2 Samuel 19:20 and Daniel 9:23 all necessarily refer to travel, but when Jesus used the phrase he did not. Otherwise this is just your opinion.

Mark 1:38 has the first instance.

When he had recently left Capernaum? He could easily be saying that is why he left there.

Mark 2 has it with Jesus saying he came to call sinners to repentance and not the righteous.

Again, why suppose he was not talking about travel? Even if we suppose "I have come" is not standard language for prophets.

The saying is Aramaic. It is paralleled with a blessing and waits for the one who is to come, which for an OT Jew would be YHWH since it's about judgment, but Paul takes it to refer to Jesus and this is an early tradition.

Sure, and Paul thought Jesus was lord. But that does not necessarily mean he thought Jesus was also God.

Many Jews were waiting for God to give them a messiah, but (perhaps apart from the Christians) they were expecting a man who would be their lord, the King of the Jews. What they got in Jesus was not that messiah, but the same sorts of ideas are there. A man sent by God, to be lord. Given the background, I see nothing in the Maranatha Anathema that suggests Paul was not an adoptionist.

Of course he differentiates. Paul is not saying Jesus is the Father, but by the logic presented, we could just as well say "There's one Lord and it is not YHWH." Paul would be aghast at the thought that YHWH is not Lord. Instead, Paul is taking both names and applying them in the Shema. Lord from the Shema applies to Jesus. God applies to YHWH. Both are titles of deity in the Shema.

The Jews had kings at one time. They seemed to cope quite well with have YHWH as lord and King David as their lord too. I am sure Paul could cope with that too. No one is saying Paul did not consider YHWH to be lord, but the verses seem to differentiate between the human lord, Jesus, and God.

I see nothing to show that it's late by comparison. Many other letters date to just a few years earlier. Galatians also shows that Paul never changed on the essentials of what He teached, and the identity of Jesus would certainly be included. I also do think some of this could be to contrast Jesus with the first Adam, but the name above every name is certainly not adoptionist.

You mention Adam. From 1 Corinthians 15:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
...
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Paul contrasts Adam with Jesus; this only makes sense if Jesus was as human as Adam.

Paul describes Jesus as the firstfruits; he was the first man raised from the dead, but soon we will follow. Paul knows the dead will be resurrected because Jesus was. That only makes sense if Jesus was human. If Jesus was God incarnate, why would his resurrection directly imply a resurrect for any man?

The language is cast in light of other hopeless cases in the OT and the reader would have thought of a couple like Abraham and Sarah by the similar language.

Sure, the text written 90 years later uses language that makes it look like a miracle. What is more likely: the author of Luke used some carefully chosen phrases or that an eighty year old woman conceived?

Or that the whole thing was made up?

This is built on your presuppositions that I do not accept. Again, I find it would have been easier for the church to not discuss the origins of Jesus, but apparently rumors were flying....

You offer a good motive for the virgin birth being made up.

Jesus was also accused of being a Samaritan and having a devil (verse 48). Can we assume these were the rumours of the time? Jesus says the Pharisees were the offspring of the devil. Can we assume that was so? Seems equally plausible that they were merely trading insults.
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passa...egitimate.aspx

Yes.

Can you support that opinion?

We also can be sure people back then knew how to do math and knew when Mary should have given birth after her marriage to Joseph, especially since everything was public.

Sure. So? You are assuming there were rumours of illegitimacy circulating while Jesus was alive. I see absolutely nothing to support that claim. At most you have Matthew and Luke, written about 90 after the birth. Who was alive then who would have known when Mary conceived?

So they would expect what? The first thing the Rome-conquering messiah would have to do is raise an army, and to do that he would have to show he was from God, and to do that, he would have to perform signs, such as healing and casting out demons, as well as preaching to people.

What do you think they expected? That he would start up a resistance cell and engage in guerrilla warfare?

The Egyptian had tried. Thaddeus had tried. These kinds of things were happening. It would seem unthinkable to think that God was reigning as King and Rome controlled Israel.

So answer the question. What were they expecting?

That could be consistent with adoptionism, but it's also consistent with my position. I do not know for sure they understood who He was entirely and they could have very well thought Rome was about to be ousted.

Okay.

Yes. She thinks that Jesus as a good and honorable Jew should also be seeking to care for His family. How can He if this stuff is going on?

I agree. Mary thought Jesus was a good and honorable Jew.

She did not think Jesus was God incarnate. She had no reason to; no angel appeared to, or her betrothed and he was born about nine month after she had sex.

Some did. We don't know what they believed. When they believed He was the Messiah, did that mean they believed everything Christians would believe later? Not necessarily. They believed that He could heal them.

Is that all they believed he could do? Are you back to the idea that they were simple, ignorant folk, and it was beyond God to explain a theology that humans somehow taught to you?

Because despite her flaws, she did have great faith.

No, she clearly did not. Despite an angel appearing to her, and to her betrothed, and then conceiving as a virgin, she still thought of "Jesus as a good and honorable Jew" who "should also be seeking to care for His family".

Again, perhaps what the Egyptian or Thaddeus was said to have done.

I thought they failed?

So your position is that Mary expected Jesus, as the one and only messiah, to do as the Egyptian or Thaddeus had done, given they were clearly false messiahs. Have I understood that right? Or did she think they were all messiahs?

Well let us suppose Mark was written in AD 40. How does that impinge on the discussion?

I believe it was asking if the account was late. If it showed up in the lifetime of Mary, that could change things.

How so?

Mary would be there to set the record straight and people who knew her could also have spoken up.

You are assuming Mary was still alive in AD 40. She would be in her fifties by then, it is quite likely she was already dead by that date.

But let us suppose she was still alive when Mark wrote his gospel. How does that impinge on the discussion?

On the other hand, how did the story of body snatching disciples gain traction if it was already established that there were guards on the tomb?

Because something had to be said to explain the empty tomb.

That explains why it might have been invented, but that was not what I asked. If there were guards on the tomb, how could the story of body snatching disciples become prevalent?

[Gary]

Another Christian belief based on assumptions.

Here is the problem with the Christian claim of a Virgin Birth: Christians start with the assumption that it happened, and then search for evidence to confirm that assumption. Let's do something different. Let's start with the evidence and see where it leads to:

1. The first Christian writings were by Paul of Tarsus. Does Paul ever mention that Jesus was born of a virgin? No. Simply looking at Paul's writings, we are left with the belief that Jesus was God's Son, Jesus was the promised Messiah, and that belief in Jesus forgives sins and merits eternal life. There is no assertion that Jesus is Yahweh himself, nor that Yahweh took on the form of a human by being born of a union between a virgin female human and the Holy Ghost.

2. The next Christian writing is the Gospel of Mark. Any mention of a virgin birth? No. Any indication that the family of Jesus, including Mary, knew that he was Yahweh, or even the Son of Yahweh? No. They thought he was mad. How is it possible that the mother of Jesus assumed he was mad if she had truly received an appearance by the angel Gabriel telling her that she would bare the Son of God??

3. We have no mention by any Christian, Jew, Roman, or pagan of the alleged virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth until the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, written in the 80's or 90's, according to the scholarly consensus! Wow! God himself mates with a human female, and no one in all of Judaism bothers to record this outrageous, never-heard-of-before claim!!

So, 40-60 years after Jesus death, two anonymous authors, writing in far away lands, produce two completely different birth narratives of a virgin birth. The two stories are not compatible except by the most bizarre of harmonizations that only someone who believes that the two stories MUST be compatible would believe.

Why would Matthew, who is known for telling "whoppers" (zombies roaming the streets and three hour eclipses) write a story about Jesus being born of a virgin: Just as the other skeptic on this thread has said: To make Jesus' birth fit with an OT prophecy, even if he has to completely invent the prophecy by twisting the original Hebrew of the OT text. Also, Christians were dealing with accusations from Jews that Jesus was illegitimate. The virgin birth involving a Holy Ghost as the father, was the best rebuttal Christians could come up with and still be able to claim that Jesus was God Incarnate. Without the virgin birth, Jesus was just a man who had been "adopted" as God's Son, either at his birth, at his baptism, or even at his resurrection.

The Virgin Birth was an invention of the early Church to plug a gigantic hole in its evolving "christology" of turning a son of God (small "s") into God Himself.

[Gary]

Not sure if you want to continue, but I have some free time now.



There is still a radical claim being made by Jesus. There was forgiveness going on in His person apart from the temple apparatus and He never prays that God forgives the sin. He just says it is forgiven and then heals the man both.



Which would be even more problematic. If the Trinity is true, then how it is revealed would have to be something delicate. After all, if Jesus says "I am God incarnate" then it would be a question of asking "Are you the Father? What does this mean?" At the same time, with the peasant folk, it's doubtful He'd go into full Nicene language.



Sure, but who is making the pronouncement? Why would Jesus be saying that man is Lord of the Sabbath? The Pharisees could just as well say "And we are men so we are Lords of the Sabbath."



The language of "I have come" refers to traveling a distance in that case. Jesus speaks it without referring to travel in that sense.



Mark 1:38 has the first instance. Mark 2 has it with Jesus saying he came to call sinners to repentance and not the righteous.



I must have just got done getting a gift for the wife and the copy didn't work and I missed it. Unfortunately, I have no idea what I was going to post now.



The saying is Aramaic. It is paralleled with a blessing and waits for the one who is to come, which for an OT Jew would be YHWH since it's about judgment, but Paul takes it to refer to Jesus and this is an early tradition.



Of course he differentiates. Paul is not saying Jesus is the Father, but by the logic presented, we could just as well say "There's one Lord and it is not YHWH." Paul would be aghast at the thought that YHWH is not Lord. Instead, Paul is taking both names and applying them in the Shema. Lord from the Shema applies to Jesus. God applies to YHWH. Both are titles of deity in the Shema.



I see nothing to show that it's late by comparison. Many other letters date to just a few years earlier. Galatians also shows that Paul never changed on the essentials of what He teached, and the identity of Jesus would certainly be included. I also do think some of this could be to contrast Jesus with the first Adam, but the name above every name is certainly not adoptionist. In Isaiah 45:23, YHWH says that to Him every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, yet in 42:8 He declares He will not share His glory with another.



The language is cast in light of other hopeless cases in the OT and the reader would have thought of a couple like Abraham and Sarah by the similar language.



I don't see the importance of it being through Joseph, but it's in chapter three because that marks the beginning of Jesus's ministry and I think by going back to Adam, Luke is showing that Jesus is for all men.



Aside from Marcion, we have zero textual evidence that the first two chapters do not belong. Without hard textual evidence, I find such cases to be quite weak really. Could there have been a proto-Luke? Perhaps, but I do not think we can know that and like Q, I view it with suspicion.



This is built on your presuppositions that I do not accept. Again, I find it would have been easier for the church to not discuss the origins of Jesus, but apparently rumors were flying....



We don't know for sure. All I can say is no one was expecting this.



But this would make the account even more shameful. As has been said, John should have known better as well.



Yes. We also can be sure people back then knew how to do math and knew when Mary should have given birth after her marriage to Joseph, especially since everything was public.



The Egyptian had tried. Thaddeus had tried. These kinds of things were happening. It would seem unthinkable to think that God was reigning as King and Rome controlled Israel.



That could be consistent with adoptionism, but it's also consistent with my position. I do not know for sure they understood who He was entirely and they could have very well thought Rome was about to be ousted.



Yes. She thinks that Jesus as a good and honorable Jew should also be seeking to care for His family. How can He if this stuff is going on?



Some did. We don't know what they believed. When they believed He was the Messiah, did that mean they believed everything Christians would believe later? Not necessarily. They believed that He could heal them.



Because despite her flaws, she did have great faith.



Again, perhaps what the Egyptian or Thaddeus was said to have done.



Mary would be there to set the record straight and people who knew her could also have spoken up.



Because something had to be said to explain the empty tomb.

Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran priests/pastors forgive sins all the time. That doesn't mean that they believe they are Yahweh. Jesus believed he was the Messiah, the Son of God, and that God had given him the power to forgive sins (in the name of Yahweh). There is no solid proof anywhere in the Synoptics that Jesus believed that he was Yahweh, the Creator of the Universe.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Claiming to have the authority to forgive was radical. No need to suppose he was any more radical than that.

Sure there was. The place of forgiveness was the temple. The temple was the place where God dwelt. Jesus is claiming that He is the place where God dwells. He is greater than the temple. He can pronounce forgiveness apart from the temple. All Jesus did was a challenge to the temple system.

Sure, because people back then were dumb and ignorant, right? So much so that God himself would have difficulty being understood. Sure he could turn water into wine and walk on water, but explain who he is in full Nicene language? No way.

That's right. Nicene language heavily involves deep philosophy many of us don't understand. To see something amazing and know it's a miracle doesn't take much understanding. Knowing how it would happen is something different.

If the trinity is true, we would expect God to have made it clear from the start, with Adam. We would expect God's chosen people to be familiar with the full Nicene language (under another name I guess).

Why?

On the other hand, if the trinity was a concept invented by man after or around the end of the first century, what we would expect is no clear reference in it to anything written before that.

Actually, if it was a concept invented by men, we would expect that men would make something easy for them to understand. They didn't. They made something radically difficult to understand.

Okay, I am slightly changing my position. Thinking about it, I would say Jesus is saying "son of man" to mean any person, not specifically himself. See Numbers 23:19, Job 16:21 or Psalm 146:3, where it is used to contrast a generic person with God, just as Jesus is doing here.

Sure it can be meant to mean men, but then you have the same problem. If it can mean any person, then the Pharisees could mean it for them. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus uses the term son of Man and he uses it as a self-descriptor and in fact, this would speak even more of deity than would the term Son of God since Son of Man comes from Daniel 7 as well. Son of Man is also not a term used heavily outside of the Gospels. Off the top of my head, I can only think of it being used in Acts 7 (And there I think it is a direct reference to Daniel 7) and once or twice in the Revelation. This means the term is not likely one invented by the early church and thrown back on Jesus since they didn't use it either.

He is not saying that Jesus is lord of the Sabbath, but that we all are. The Sabbath does not rule man, rather man rules over the Sabbath. Notice how this follows from the previous verse:

Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Same problem again. The Pharisees could then just say "Then why do you not acknowledge our rule over the Sabbath?"

So make your case. Show that Numbers 22:38,

Balaam lived near the Euphrates which is a way's away from the Jordan river.

Numbers 22:4 The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, “This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.”

So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, 5 sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River, in his native land. Balak said:

2 Samuel 14:15,

Joab son of Zeruiah knew that the king’s heart longed for Absalom. 2 So Joab sent someone to Tekoa and had a wise woman brought from there. He said to her, “Pretend you are in mourning. Dress in mourning clothes, and don’t use any cosmetic lotions. Act like a woman who has spent many days grieving for the dead.

2 Samuel 19:20

When Shimei son of Gera crossed the Jordan, he fell prostrate before the king 19 and said to him, “May my lord not hold me guilty. Do not remember how your servant did wrong on the day my lord the king left Jerusalem. May the king put it out of his mind. 20 For I your servant know that I have sinned, but today I have come here as the first from the tribes of Joseph to come down and meet my lord the king.”

and Daniel 9:23 all necessarily refer to travel, but when Jesus used the phrase he did not. Otherwise this is just your opinion.

Daniel 9 is about someone coming from the throne of God. That's the closest you will get to Jesus, and Jesus infers a voluntary act on His behalf. He does not just speak of being sent but of coming himself on his initiative implying volition.

When he had recently left Capernaum? He could easily be saying that is why he left there.

Again, why suppose he was not talking about travel? Even if we suppose "I have come" is not standard language for prophets.

Mark has throughout the narrative that Jesus is a man from God. His first dramatic encounter is with a demon in fact which is fitting since Jesus is bringing the Kingdom of God and challenging the evil one. Jesus referring to I have come I doubt refers to any one city since He does the same everywhere He goes.

Sure, and Paul thought Jesus was lord. But that does not necessarily mean he thought Jesus was also God.

Then why Christianize the Shema and put Jesus in it? That's the great monotheistic faith statement of Israel.

Many Jews were waiting for God to give them a messiah, but (perhaps apart from the Christians) they were expecting a man who would be their lord, the King of the Jews. What they got in Jesus was not that messiah, but the same sorts of ideas are there. A man sent by God, to be lord. Given the background, I see nothing in the Maranatha Anathema that suggests Paul was not an adoptionist.

It's also a prayer. It's in fact a prayer to Jesus. That would include Jesus as a person in the divine identity worthy of prayer.

The Jews had kings at one time. They seemed to cope quite well with have YHWH as lord and King David as their lord too. I am sure Paul could cope with that too. No one is saying Paul did not consider YHWH to be lord, but the verses seem to differentiate between the human lord, Jesus, and God.

Of course he differentiates in person, but again, this is a Christianization of the Shema. No Jew would have ever thought of including David in the Shema.

You mention Adam. From 1 Corinthians 15:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
...
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Paul contrasts Adam with Jesus; this only makes sense if Jesus was as human as Adam.

And He was. That's what we mean by fully human and fully God.

Paul describes Jesus as the firstfruits; he was the first man raised from the dead, but soon we will follow. Paul knows the dead will be resurrected because Jesus was. That only makes sense if Jesus was human. If Jesus was God incarnate, why would his resurrection directly imply a resurrect for any man?

This assumes a docetic approach for me. I do hold that Jesus is deity, but it's just as much a heresy to deny His humanity as it is to deny His deity.

Sure, the text written 90 years later uses language that makes it look like a miracle. What is more likely: the author of Luke used some carefully chosen phrases or that an eighty year old woman conceived?

We go by the textual evidence that we have. The question is not at this point if the text is true but if this is what Luke wrote. It could be written immediately and be bogus. It could be written centuries later and be true. Also, you're going by a more prior possibility approach. If all the evidence we had was just this text, sure it's less likely of a miracle. If we introduce other evidence, then the odds change.

You offer a good motive for the virgin birth being made up.

Yes, and this would have been a shameful way to bring about Messiah. He's not born in a glorious mansion or palace and his visitors in Luke are shepherds, people not held in high regards. This is not the stuff someone makes up.

Can you support that opinion?

My support is that the accounts are even there. John and Mark had no problem avoiding a birth narrative and John is the latest. Why did Matthew and Luke and why did they include birth narratives so radically different?

Sure. So? You are assuming there were rumours of illegitimacy circulating while Jesus was alive. I see absolutely nothing to support that claim. At most you have Matthew and Luke, written about 90 after the birth. Who was alive then who would have known when Mary conceived?

I question your dating. I would place both of them pre-70 and this was in the lifetime of eyewitnesses then.

So answer the question. What were they expecting?

Just what you said. These people raised up armies and promised miracles. They were going to free Israel from Rome.

I agree. Mary thought Jesus was a good and honorable Jew.

She did not think Jesus was God incarnate. She had no reason to; no angel appeared to, or her betrothed and he was born about nine month after she had sex.

Taking the accounts at face value I'm still not sure how much Mary would have understood about Jesus.

Is that all they believed he could do? Are you back to the idea that they were simple, ignorant folk, and it was beyond God to explain a theology that humans somehow taught to you?

Frankly, we don't have enough data to know what they believed He could do. They show up in the Gospels not to tell us about themselves, but to reveal the nature of Jesus. In fact, the ones that often seem to get the nature of Jesus most right are the ones who are outside the people of Israel, like the Centurion or the Syro-Phoenician woman.

No, she clearly did not. Despite an angel appearing to her, and to her betrothed, and then conceiving as a virgin, she still thought of "Jesus as a good and honorable Jew" who "should also be seeking to care for His family".

Yes, she did. All Jews were expected to do that at the time. Family was one of the highest priorities. When Jesus challenged that idea, it was amazingly radical.

I thought they failed?

Yes. The point?

So your position is that Mary expected Jesus, as the one and only messiah, to do as the Egyptian or Thaddeus had done, given they were clearly false messiahs. Have I understood that right? Or did she think they were all messiahs?

Quite likely something similar. Where these people failed, Jesus would succeed.

You are assuming Mary was still alive in AD 40. She would be in her fifties by then, it is quite likely she was already dead by that date.

It's said in the church tradition that Mary was around for quite some time afterwards and I believe even with John in Ephesus.

But let us suppose she was still alive when Mark wrote his gospel. How does that impinge on the discussion?

Mary would be there when accounts are written to set the record straight as an eyewitness.

That explains why it might have been invented, but that was not what I asked. If there were guards on the tomb, how could the story of body snatching disciples become prevalent?

That was answered. It had to be given somehow and even the lame excuse of "We fell asleep" had to be given. How else are they going to explain the empty tomb with guards there?