Why was Mary a virgin?

[drkitten]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all.

Yeah, well, traditional exegesis is a wonderful thing.

By the time of Christ, the accepted reading of that passage of Isaiah was the prediction of the Messiah. If you want to throw that out, you're welcome to -- but then you've got little or no reason to believe that a Messiah will appear at all....

 

[rwp]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all. By my reading, he's talking about the boy who's born in Isaiah 8. In Chapter 7, the kingdom of Judah is being attacked by two kings: King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Ephraim. Isaiah goes to Ahaz, the king of Judah, and says, "This kid will be born and before he's old enough to know right from wrong, Rezin and Pekah will will be defeated by the Assyrians."

Then in Chapter 8, Isaiah fathers a child with the "prophetess" and God tells him, "before your son is old enough to say 'mommy' or 'daddy', the Assyrians will show up and kick Rezin and Pekah in the butt." Ahaz's reign, along with the war with Rezin and Pekah and their subsequent defeat at the hands of Assyria, is also recounted in 2 Kings Chapter 16.

The authors of the New Testament attempt to make various Old Testament writings refer to their characters. It doesn't mean that it is a factual relation - I just mean to say that is what they did.

[22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23] "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."

 

[Marc L]

This will probably illustrate my real lack of biblical historical knowledge, but it is something that I've been trying to think through.

Ok, if we are to believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, why should that be a legitimate starting point to the whole story.

There are two aspects:

1) Mary was engaged to Joseph - but was it common practice back then (as it is now with many conservative types, but many many less than say 20 or 30 years ago) not to have sex before marriage? Did this type of behavior evolve from the old testament times?

2) If sex before marriage was not acceptable or normal, was it ok to be 'living together'? I assume that at least near the time she was to give birth, this would have been the case as they travelled together.

As I say, my historical knowledge of the social rules of the time is probably a bit lacking.

As I understand it, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to have sex back then. Unfortunately, I don't have any official sources, so don't quote me.

As for the argument about whether or not the NT writers intended her to be a virgin, I'd have to say, based on context, that they did. Mary herself asks how she could be the mother of the Messiah, since she hadn't known man (which was a dumb question, in my opinion), and later on, when Joseph wants to break off the engagement (expecting that she'd slept with someone else-incidentally, implying that the two hadn't slept together), the angel tells him that the pregnancy is God's work.

Marc

Marc

 

[Blutarsky]

So who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

After Joseph, there's basically nothing in common -- in a purportedly straight line paternal descent -- until you get to David, son of Jesse.

These canards have been discussed and the apparent contradictions have been harmonized by textual scholars going back as far as Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum.

 

[rwp]

So , why is Mary a virgin? The answer is most likely because the authors wanted her to be. Why did the authors want her to be a virgin?

This virgin-birth is common in other myths as well. It seems to give deity status to the baby.

 

[Steven Howard]

Yeah, well, traditional exegesis is a wonderful thing.

By the time of Christ, the accepted reading of that passage of Isaiah was the prediction of the Messiah. If you want to throw that out, you're welcome to -- but then you've got little or no reason to believe that a Messiah will appear at all....

I know the gospel writers decided that one sentence from Isaiah was about Mary and Jesus. I just don't understand how they decided that, or how anybody can read it in context and support that interpretation.

 

[drkitten]

These canards have been discussed and the apparent contradictions have been harmonized by textual scholars going back as far as Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum.

Yes, and they're still unbelievable.

 

[Z]

It's a good question, Steven.

I think the answer lies more in the style of repetitive epic themes so common to the Greek writers of the times. The older story might have been modeled on an even older myth, but the writers wanted to somehow fit it into newer myths that they needed to create. So somehow, every kid with a special birth, where an opposing nation was toppled, was a 'practice run' for the coming of Jesus.

Just one armchair scholar's opinion, mind you...

 

[rwp]

The Wikipedia article on Virgin Birth^WP would be a benefit to this thread. There is too much to quote, so I will just reference the article here.

 

[Blutarsky]

Yes, and they're still unbelievable.

Thanks for the personal opinion, but unless you've got some scholarly work to bolster that opinion...

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

 

[Z]

Thanks for the personal opinion, but unless you've got some scholarly work to bolster that opinion...

He really doesn't need it. As of yet, the attempts at apologetics have fallen far short of the mark, regarding the lineage of Christ. The burden of proof still lies firmly in the apologists' courts.

 

[Blutarsky]

Again, more personal opinion. What type of evidence are you looking for? Are you wanting birth certificates certified by a Notary Public?

The skeptic is asserting that the lineages don' add up, and I'm asking for scholarly work backing that up.

I doubt that even conclusive proof, if it was offered by an apoloigist would suffice, seeing as the skeptic is "skeptical" of the apologist, as I am skeptical of the skeptics opinion of the apologist...

 

[drkitten]

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

Doesn't matter. Which one was Joseph's father?

Either Luke was in error, or Matthew was.

 

[Blutarsky]

Both sides trace back to David. Does it matter which of the two sons of David the ultimate person came from? The ultimate fact that Christ was a decendent of David is the quintessence of the prohpecy, not the exact path.

 

[Steven Howard]

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

They were both whose sons? David's? Are you using "son" metaphorically to mean "descendent?"

Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob. Luke says Joseph's father was Heli. Unless you can show that Jacob and Heli are two different names for the same person, that's a contradiction.

 

[Blutarsky]

That's an irrelevant contradiction, as both have their locus in David. Anyone interested in how the two ideas can be harmonized has to look no further than levirate marriage.

 

[drkitten]

That's an irrelevant contradiction, as both have their locus in David. Anyone interested in how the two ideas can be harmonized has to look no further than levirate marriage.

I understand levirate marriage.

I see no reason to find "levirate marriage" to be more plausible than "Luke made stuff up."

In fact, the existence of several dozen other equally implausible theories to explain the apparent discrepancy -- which means that the scholars themselves do not accept the levirate marriage theory -- is all the scholarly opinion I need to discount levirate marriage as a plausible explanation.

 

[Steven Howard]

That's an irrelevant contradiction, as both have their locus in David. Anyone interested in how the two ideas can be harmonized has to look no further than levirate marriage.

How does the practice of a widow marrying her husband's brother give a man two different fathers?

 

[drkitten]

How does the practice of a widow marrying her husband's brother give a man two different fathers?

The new husband would become the legal father of any children. The modern word for such a relationship is a "stepfather."

Under this interpretation, Heli as Joseph's father, Jacob his stepfather (or vice versa). Of course, the problem here is that for Heli and Jacob to be siblings, they would need to have the same father (which they don't, by the geneology).

So the only way that the "levirate marriage" theory works is for this rather improbable situation to have happened for thirty-odd generations running, until Solomon died and Nathan married one of his widows....

 

[triadboy]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all.

You are correct, Sir! Matthew's agenda was to preach to Jewish converts. But he apprently wasn't very good at Hebrew. Along with classifying a young woman as a virgin - Matthew also got confused with Hebrew Double-Speak.

Look at the following passage:

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This is Hebrew Double-Speak for - a donkey. Look at how confused Matthew became:

Matthew 21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled" [Zechariah 9:9]
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Rootin' Tootin' Messiah riding full gallop with one foot on a colt and one foot on an ass! Now THAT'S a savior!