Why was Mary a virgin?

Beady said:
Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians still follow those rules (the real Fundies do, anyway). Illustration:

Some time ago, a cow-orker was processing a Muslim woman whose husband, already here as a Permanent Resident, was petitioning to have her made a Permanent Resident, as well. The documentation for the marriage was a little lacking, which was no reflection on the couple, so my cow-orker sent out a boilerplate request to the husband for further corroboration. The documents came in, all right, but they were accompanied by a cover letter literally damning my cow-orker to hell for suggesting that the wife was less than pure. There was enough in there that the entire package was sent to ICE for a ruling on whether it constituted a threat to a Federal officer.
Click to expand...
This may hold true for muslims, but whether it holds true for hardline Christians is a different matter all together. Among hardline Calvinists, from the 17th century to the present day, a couple didn't get married unless and until the girl was demonstrably pregnant. Similarly, in rural (Lutheran) Norway, it was common practice that a girl of marriable age spent her nights in the "maidens' room" (rough translation), which was not directly accessible from the rest of the house, only from the outside, where she would be visited by the young bucks of the village, and whichever one of them (she thought) knocked her up was expected to marry her. The reason for this sort of practice is that you don't want to run the risk of marrying a girl, only to find she's infertile after the wedding. At least, not in a monogamous culture. This is less of an objection for muslims, as not only do they get to have up to four wives, but the procedure for divorce is established in scripture. Jews, at least at the time of the Old Testament, also have the polygamy option; witness Gen 29 in which Jacob marries Rachel in addition to Leah.
 
drkitten said:
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....
Click to expand...

Matthew uses "begat", so his list would have to be the biological fathers. Luke uses "the son of", so his list would have to be the stepfathers. Even if we bend over backwards and admit the possibility that a.) Joseph was the product of an uninterrupted thousand-year string of such occurences; and that b.) Luke, in compiling his genealogy identified every single man as the "son of" his mother's second husband, there are still a couple of problems for blutarsky's assertion that the two lists are consistent.

To demonstrate these we need to do the "scholarly work" of a.) counting; and b.) reading the rest of the Bible.

By counting, we can see that Matthew says there were 25 generations from David to Joseph, while Luke says there were 40. Further, we see that while the two lists both trace the same line from Abraham to David, in between David and Joseph they have only two names in common: Shealtiel and his son Zerubabbel. The problem here is that by Matthew's count, there are 10 generations between Zerubabbel and Joseph, while Luke puts 19 generations between them. One could argue that the author of Matthew is leaving out generations in the sake of brevity, but then he goes on that weird numerology kick about 14 generations from this to that, and another 14 from that to the other.

By reading the rest of the Bible, we can see that Matthew's list follows the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles Chapter 3, except that the gospel author skips over four kings of Judah (Ahaziah, Athalian, Jehoash, and Amaziah should be in between Jeroham and Uzziah). We also see more trouble from Shealtiel and Zerubabbel. Chronicles says Z is S's nephew, while Matthew says S "begat" Z. Luke can possibly get around this, by the argument that "son of" need not mean "direct biological son of", but then Luke's getting from Nathan to Shealtiel through a list of names that don't seem to correspond with any Old Testament source.

We also see that none of the names on either list after Zerubabbel and before Joseph seem to appear anywhere else in the Bible. Chronicles doesn't list either Rhesea (per Luke) or Abiud (per Matthew) as one of Z's many children. It lists two sons: Meshullam and Hananiah, and proceeds to trace the descent through Hananiah.
 
What Blut seems to be saying, is it's not the lineage that matters, but the essence of the lineage.

The problem there, of course, is if the essence were all that matters, they would have simply stated Joseph, descendent of David. Clearly, by laying out a genealogical path, the author was attempting to validate that lineage; and clearly, one of the two - or both - got it wrong.

Any other lineage discrepencies would have shed doubt upon the authenticity of the subject's heritage, and likely would result in any claims of authority based on heritage being discounted. Only Joseph's lineage seems immune to such scrutiny. Why? The subject HAD to be descended from noble blood, or the prophecy simply wouldn't work.

If I present you with two documents, one by John and one by George, and they listed the following heritage:

JOHN:
Wilber son of Sam son of Luther son of Martin son of Bob, King of the Hill People
GEORGE:
Wilber son of Ricky son of Tom son of Martin son of Jason son of Randy son of Bob, King of the Hill People

...A skeptic's response, simply, would be to point out that the lineages don't match. The burden of proof is then on me to go back and figure out why they don't match, and present evidence to explain, for example, how Ricky was also known as Sam, or how John missed a step in the lineage, etc. If, instead, I wave it away, saying such things as, "Oh, Ricky was Wilbur's stepfather, and was also descended from Bob..." or "It's the essence that Wilbur is Bob's descendant", or worse, "Ricky is Wilbur's wife's dad", then I haven't supported my burden.

This is the state of the situation with the lineage of Joseph. The burden of proof still lay in the apologists' hands, and so far they've done nothing to support this claim or rectify this error.
 
Steven Howard said:
To demonstrate these we need to do the "scholarly work" of a.) counting; and b.) reading the rest of the Bible.
Click to expand...

So, Blutarsky, "levirate marriage" demonstrably doesn't work as an explanation of that inconsistency.

Unless, of course, there's something that we've missed out on.

But in that case, can you either correct our understanding of levirate marriage, or suggest another, more plausible, explanation other that "they made it up"?
 
rwp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Matthew 1, NIV
[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."
Click to expand...

Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.

But any believer will tell you that because Christians call him Immanuel (in lots of their songs of worship) the prophecy is true either way. If the prophesy was "and they will call him Billy the Fish" —which means, "He shoots, He scores" It would only take some church to include that in a chorus and Bang! prophesy fulfilled.
 
drkitten said:
The Gospels were written in Greek, specifically to fulfil the Hebrew prophesies and most specifically Isaiah. There's no reason to assume that the facts weren't "shaded" to make them more closely meet the prophesies -- and indeed, every reason to believe that they were. Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines to prove that Jesus was of the house of David.
Click to expand...

I think you can definately make the case that the infancy narratives were written with this specifically in mind. For RWP and others defending these narratives, it's important to note that they are written in an entirely different voice, and are probably the product of a different author.

Outside of the infancy narratives, you would be able to point to a handful of instances in which it appears that certain aspects were written with this in mind, for example the refusal to break the bones of Jesus on the cross. These instances are usually followed by the phrase, "that the scripture might be fulfilled."

Of note however is that the primary target group for these gospels was a Jewish audience, hence it would make sense to refer back to some of their expectations regarding the Messiah, in spite of the fact that from the narratives themselves, it would appear Jesus could care less if met their "expectations."

So we are left with a story whose main character is content to "not fulfill" these expectations, and a handful of phrases coined by authors who seemed to deem it important that He did anyway.
 
Marc L said:
. . . 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.
Click to expand...

I think I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If Joseph had never been with Mary it would have been easy for him to tell if she had been with another man. He would not have wanted to break the engagement because he could have gotten out even after the marriage if she was not a virgin.

However, if he HAD been with her, there was no way for him to know if she had been with another man. He would have wanted to break the engagement because he knew there was no way to ever tell.
 
qayak said:
I think I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If Joseph had never been with Mary it would have been easy for him to tell if she had been with another man. He would not have wanted to break the engagement because he could have gotten out even after the marriage if she was not a virgin.

However, if he HAD been with her, there was no way for him to know if she had been with another man. He would have wanted to break the engagement because he knew there was no way to ever tell.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are getting wrapped around the axle about something that didn't happen. The whole nativity scene was inserted into Matthew - 80-90 years after the supposed blessed event! It's made up.
 
triadboy said:
I don't understand why you are getting wrapped around the axle about something that didn't happen. The whole nativity scene was inserted into Matthew - 80-90 years after the supposed blessed event! It's made up.
Click to expand...
True. It was made up to explain to children the Isis dioramas that were common in the Roman world of the time. The mother is Isis, the baby is her husband Osiris - bear with me :) . Osiris was killed by his evil brother Set and cut into parts that were hidden across the world/Egypt to conceal the crime. Isis, creator of the animals (Osiris did humans and the Nile, as I recall, that's males for you, always muscling in on the important stuff) could speak all their languages, and they told her where the pieces were. "In a tree" said the birds, "In the river" said the fish, "Down a hole" said the snakes, and so on. Isis gathered the pieces together secretly (so that Set wouldn't notice) and hid them in the cow-byre - "In the dung-heap" said the cows - until they were all together again. (There was some dispute as to whether she found his penis, one version has the smith-god making one of bronze.) Once they were all together - it took three days - Osiris was reborn as a child and rapidly developed into adulthood, smote Set smotily and all was right again. Isis's festival day was the 25th of December. The nativity dioramas of today are direct descendants of the Isis shrines that followers - there were many - set out around the winter solstice.
 
stamenflicker said:
Of note however is that the primary target group for these gospels was a Jewish audience, hence it would make sense to refer back to some of their expectations regarding the Messiah, in spite of the fact that from the narratives themselves, it would appear Jesus could care less if met their "expectations."
Click to expand...
I think John was aimed at a Jewish audience, Mark perhaps at an ex-Jewish (post-Jewish?) audience, but Matthew and Luke were aimed at a non-Jewish audience. Mark tries to distance Christianity from the rebellious Jews of his day, John doesn't really give a fart about the material world, Matthew and Luke are aiming at a synthesis of traditions. That's just how it seems to me.
 
StewartP said:
Originally Posted by Matthew 1, NIV


Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.
Click to expand...
"Immanuel" makes for a crap chant. No way to get a mob energised. "Je-Sus, Je-Sus, Je-Sus ...", that's what I call a chant. Immanuel can't compete with that.
 
Bill Clinton and the Pope are killed in the same plane crash. Shortly after, the Pope finds himself in Hell. He goes over to Satan and says, "I think there has been a mistake. I should be in heaven with my Lord."

The Devil checks his list and says, "You are correct. A mistake has been made. Relax while i go talk to God and see if we can sort this out."

A little while later Satan returns and says, "Your Holiness, there was a mistake. Someone got the names wrong and you were sent here while Bill Clinton went to heaven. Unfortunately, it is late in the day and everyone has knocked off so we won't be able to fix the mistake until the morning. In the meantime, we have fixed up a room for you and your night will be just as it would in heaven. Have a good evening."

The next morning Satan leads the Pope over to a set of golden stairs that has appeared from Heaven. He tells the Pope that he is to climb to Heaven. The Pope starts up the stairs.

About half way up he sees a figure coming down and as they draw closer he sees it is Bill Clinton heading to Hell. Bill stops and says to the Pope, "Your Holiness, I am terribly sorry for the mistake and that you had to spend a night in Hell. I will gladly trade places with a deserving person like you."

The Pope says, "That's okay my son. I would gladly change places with you because I know that you have tried to be good but I have spent my whole life dreaming of getting into Heaven and talking to the people I have grown to admire. People like Jesus, The Virgin Mary, St. Peter, . . . ."

At this point Bill Clinton interupts the Pope and says, "Ummmmmm. . . about that virgin thing. Sorry!"
 
drkitten said:
Actually, I submit that your quotation actually strengthens my point.

If the word "almah" actually meant "virgin," then it would have been unnecessary to add "who had known no man by lying with him" in that passage.

We wouldn't write in modern English that so-and-so is a virgin who hasn't had sex. That's redundant. But we might write that so-and-so is a young woman who hasn't had sex.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not necessarily "in the olden days". So powerful were the social stigma of premarital sex -- especially for a woman, that calling someone a "maiden", technically without reference to her virginal status, may just simply be presumed that she still was. This is because unmarried females who were not were a big goddamned deal, and were harlots or whores or soiled or god knows what other colorful speech was used.

And I think a writer might very well double-imply virginity. "She was a virgin, who had never had sex" may be redundant, but also drives the point home. Which is the point of such a passage.

And the whole point of her being a virgin was that, presumably, people born of vaginas that had multiple weiners in them were less pure than one in which only one man's seed had traveled.

And if you're to be born a god, you're not gonna be born of anything remotely polluted. And now, the sound bite: God does not play sloppy seconds to any man.
 
qayak said:
I think I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If Joseph had never been with Mary it would have been easy for him to tell if she had been with another man. He would not have wanted to break the engagement because he could have gotten out even after the marriage if she was not a virgin.

However, if he HAD been with her, there was no way for him to know if she had been with another man. He would have wanted to break the engagement because he knew there was no way to ever tell.
Click to expand...

And that would make sense, if your Average Joe (pun intended) were in fact that nitpicky. Most men that I know, if they hear their girl is pregnant are only going to get mad it there's a chance it was someone else. As far as Joseph knew, there was only one way for someone to get pregnant, and that was by sex. If he'd been sleeping with her, his first reaction likely would have been "oops," not ,"Slut, let's break the engagement."


Originally Posted by triadboy
I don't understand why you are getting wrapped around the axle about something that didn't happen. The whole nativity scene was inserted into Matthew - 80-90 years after the supposed blessed event! It's made up.
Click to expand...

For the same reason why you have books like "The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek," and forums upon forums upon forums of people arguing about whether or not Kirk ever really violated the Prime Directive.

Marc
 
StewartP said:
"and they will call him Billy the Fish" —which means, "He shoots, He scores".
Click to expand...
Actually, Billy the Fish was a goalkeeper which makes the difference between him and Jesus even more pronounced.


After all, we at least have evidence that Billy the Fish saves...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom