Jesus maleness from a Virgin Birth

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
21

Why would I need to dump the rest of the supernatural stuff just because I don’t find the virgin birth in the Bible? I’m not doubting the virgin birth because of science, or how crazy it sounds and ect… I’m rejecting it for the same reasons I reject things like 7 day creationism, because I don’t find it in the scriptures.

This is my issue. The verses in the New Testament are quotes from the Old Testament and the Old Testament verses has a very clear context and it’s not the foretelling of the birth of Jesus.

Isaiah 7:14
New American Standard Bible
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.

Many jump to this because of the word virgin. But here the word can also equally be read as young woman.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm

Here is the greater context of those verses.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207&version=NASB&interface=amp

So in Isaiah chapter 7 what’s being talked about is a young woman giving birth and before that young woman’s kid is even old enough to eat honey what was said will come to pass. If you’ve not read the entire chapter before I suggest it. It’s not about the birth of Jesus, but another kid and that story is being hyperlinked to.

So if that story is not about a virgin, and it’s being quoted, I don’t see a particular reason that in the New Testament it also needs to be understood as virgin. There is simply no compelling reason for me to draw that conclusion and Christ being the byproduct of a man and a woman does not undermine theology or that Jesus was god manifested in flesh anymore than Jesus having a human mother. If Jesus was half human, fully human, half god, fully god, and ect…. It’s all the same. If Mary being the woman that gave birth to Jesus , with all the biology involved did not interfere with any supernatural aspects or who Jesus is I don’t see why Jesus also having a earthly father would change anything.

Most of us don’t believe Yahweh had sex with Mary somehow through the holy spirit. It’s not some Roman mythology where a young woman is raped by a god and gives birth to a halfling. The conceiving , whatever that means is not a reference to biology or sex. So it does not matter if Jesus had a earthly father or not. It does not contradict or undermine Yahweh being the father of Jesus or Jesus being his only begotten son. Jesus was not carrying around Yahweh genetics.

22

You can certainly claim Isaiah 7:14 does not say virgin and I would not disagree with you. But Matthew thought it did and both Matthew and Luke clearly teach a virgin birth. So I would question the reading comprehension of anyone suggesting “it’s not in the scriptures” unless you don’t think the New Testament is scripture.

Whether it means only young woman or also virgin is a difficult translation issue. Because young women were expected to be virgins in that culture it may be implied. We can’t be certain. Also, the Jewish “scholars” 200 years before Jesus was born translated the Hebrew word almah into Greek in the Septuagint and they thought virgin was appropriate. They certainly were not motivated by a Christian piety. Not to mention the NT is highly dependent on the Septuagint, not the MT. This does not impact my beliefs because I do not subscribe to any form of inerrancy and I think much of the text of the Bible has changed significantly throughout history.

I also agree this is not a Messianic prophecy about Jesus anymore than “out of Egypt I called my son is.” Matthew tries to connect everything about Jesus to the Old Testament using typology and standards much looser than acceptable for a writer today. But was Matthew casting traditions he had received or knew in light of the OT or just creating them out of the OT? Or maybe a bit of both? Where there is smoke there may be fire.

At any rate, under the most common resolution of the the synoptic problem Matthew and Luke wrote independently. This tends to move their agreements in their respective infancy narratives back a little.

Vinnie

Correct. Mary gives her consent in Luke as my Catholic friends are eager to point out.

I also do not think the virgin birth is a theological necessity either. Some back themselves into a wall with original sin and it’s transmission through the male line. But just because it is not a theological necessity for understanding Jesus does not mean it did or didn’t happen. If Jesus actually was God incarnate, I see little reason to deny the possibility of a miraculous birth.

Vinnie

4 Likes
23

Well I guess I think the reading comprehension is questionable as well for those they think it is clearly a virgin birth. Or if they do think it is, then I’m curious as to why they don’t believe the woman in Isaiah being quoted about is also not a virgin giving a miraculous birth. Seems inconsistent.

24

Isaiah 7:14 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Incarnation of course. Jesus read Himself into the OT. How could He not? In His fully human divinity. Divinity that can only be warranted by parthenogenesis to resurrection.

25

The issue isn’t the just semantics of the word virgin, it’s the narrative in Luke. It says an angel tells Mary she’s going to have a child, and Mary, understanding how people get pregnant, says (Luke 1:34) “How will this be, I have not known a man (euphemism for “I’ve never had sex”)?” and the angel basically says, don’t worry, no sex required, the Spirit of God will come over you, and that’s how you will get pregnant. What virgin means in Isaiah is irrelevant to the “reading comprehension” of that narrative which pretty clearly says Mary was a virgin and she got pregnant because of some miraculous spiritual event.

8 Likes
26

It says she was a virgin at that time. They the holy spirit would come upon her and she would conceive a child. Virgins get raped. Virgins can choose to not be virgins and have sex.

So the writers felt that whatever happened was relevant to the quoting a story about a young woman who had a kid who would be called Immanuel that was born way before Mary was born.

Why would they quote that if it was just next to useless. So I don’t see the reason to just say, well they quoted this but it’s irrelevant. Could have quoted tons of random births but they choose this one, but not for any particular reason.

Contrary to popular belief, virgins are not magical and their blood is not special. It connects really well into the bitter water test for adultery. They probably were not actually drinking a magical adultery detecting potion.

As for Matthew it says “ and he knew her not until Jesis was born “ which is very different from kept her a virgin “.

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-25.htm

27

I don’t understand what you are asking. Have you read Luke 1? Luke does not quote Isaiah. The narrative pretty clearly says Mary was not sexually experienced (ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω) and she became impregnated miraculously in that moment, with no sex act of any kind, consensual or non-consensual, with a human or with a deity. That is what the narrative has been interpreted for centuries as meaning and why “born of the virgin Mary” is part of the Nicene Creed. Matthew 1:20 says “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Not from a rape or sex with Joseph.

No, it’s not. The verb γινώσκω is repeated used as a euphemism for “have sex” in the Bible. From Strong’s “by a Hebraistic euphemism (cf. Winer’s Grammar, 18), found also in Greek writings from the Alexandrian age down, γινώσκω is used of the carnal connection of male and female, (cf. or have a (criminal) intimacy with): of a husband, Matthew 1:25; of the woman, Luke 1:34; (Genesis 4:1, 17; Genesis 19:8; 1 Samuel 1:19, etc.; Judith 16:22; Callimachus () epigr. 58, 3; often in Plutarch; cf. Vögelin, Plutarch, Brut., p. 10ff; so also Latincognosco, Ovid. met. 4, 596; novi, Justin Martyr, hist. 27, 3, 11).”

3 Likes
28

It is very different.

It says Joseph did not have sex with her. I believe him. Someone else is obviously the one that had sex with her and I highly doubt it was the Holy Spirit.

What it does not say is Joseph kept her a virgin. He did not sleep with her.

Does not matter who is quoting it. Does not matter where the quote is used. Matthew directly quotes it and Luke is alluding to the quote with “ near a sin and shall call him “ .

Anyways. I understand y’all’s opinion. I’m not convinced and it’s because of the Bible, not because I can’t accept the supernatural. I accept all of the supernatural stuff in the Bible. Simply don’t think the argument is strong thst the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary. Not literally as the angel of the lord , and not magically though whatever means y’all think it happened.

Eve also gave God credit for helping her give birth to a son. Elizabeth , just like Sarah also received help from the lord in having sons. Tons of women said god helped them have sons.

29

Okay, but that is you saying you reject what the account clearly claims, which is different from claiming the Bible doesn’t say Mary was a virgin who became miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit, which it does. People who accept what the account claims don’t have reading comprehension problems. They take the account of the miracle as an account of a miracle.

That verse in Isaiah that is cited as a prophesy probably referred at one point in history to a different young woman who got pregnant the normal way. Then it was appropriated prophetically to refer to Mary, and the point of citing it was not to establish Mary’s virginity, it was to establish Jesus’ identity as the Messiah.

Sure, but no other narrative says the Holy Spirit overshadowed a woman and she got pregnant. They explicitly mentioned the men involved. It is your prerogative to say you don’t believe the miracle ever happened, just don’t imply it’s not in the Bible and confused people made the Annunciation thing up because they just don’t understand that the virgin in Isaiah could mean a young woman or that a woman was a virgin until she had sex or got raped.

6 Likes
30

Obviously I don’t think the Bible says it or
I would believe it. And Joseph is mentioned in it as well. It never says Sampson’s “ dad “ is the one that got Manoah pregnant either. We just presume it because it’s logical.

Even in chapter 16 with Sampson where it says his brothers came down, that word can also mean countrymen and relatives. No reason to believe Manoah’s husband had other wives is there? How do they know that it was Manoah who was infertile and not her husband? There are various arguments where people believe Sampson may have been the byproduct of a rape and that’s why he hated the philistines so much.

We know that Roman’s used rape to intimidate others. We know that virginity was this special title for Jewish men. They go on and on about virgins. When it says that Joseph knew she was pregnant, it’s just a presumption that it was because she was showing. I highly doubt she was telling him about not having her period given how fast he was going to drop her. It’s it less logical to think that Mary was raped by a Roman, and that he was going to leave her because he wanted a virgin, just like all of them seemed to have wanted.

As for Yahweh’s shadow coming over her. That id meaningless. It’s ambiguous in every way. The literal understanding is that he stood over her and his form blocked out the light casting a shadow over her. That’s pretty ridiculous though I think. It just all adds to the hyperbolic aspect of it in my opinion.

After Mary says basically let your will be done to your bond servant, she sings a song about toppling over power heads. She could have most definitely been a victim to the Roman soldiers in many ways, just like many other young women were.

31

That.

You would be among very few among Christians down through history to decide that Jesus’ birth was not a miracle. What miracles do you believe in?

32

I believe in 100% of the miracles in the Bible. And all of us in here, especially the Protestants, believe in very few things the church has historically believed in. So that’s not much of a argument. Otherwise we would all be gay hating creationist who thinks unbaptized babies go to purgatory…

33

You just elected to not believe in one, it appears. And eliminated most all Catholics as being Christian.

34

Dale I don’t have time for your games. For a fact, I’m not even going to read or respond to anything else you have to say on this thread, on this subject. The birth of Jesus was a miracle. So was Elizabeth’s and Sarah’s and ect… never said Catholics are not Christians. I presume everyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian regardless of their beliefs, even if I think they are wrong or horrible people.

35

What about the creeds? There are many other historical beliefs we still hold.

Who says unbaptized babies go to purgatory?

1 Like
36

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

37

That is very long! Please highlight the passages that say that unbaptized infants go to purgatory.

1 Like
38

You don’t have time to reply to Christy, either.

39

Hi @Christy! FWIW just want to share some thoughts on this.

The idea that Isa. 7:14 was “appropriated” is very popular in modern circles (Ehrman as a champion). But I’m confident the translators of the LXX knew the difference between a virgin and young woman who might not be, and they chose a very specific word. I lean toward thinking the 2nd and 3rd cent BC Jewish scholars knew what the Hebrew text meant, and they translated it faithfully.

In addition there is the context. Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign “let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” He chickens out. So then to think God comes back with, “OK you coward. I’ll come up with a sign! Some random young woman will get pregnant in the normal way.” I’d be like, “is that all you got, God??!!” So contextually, “a virgin will conceive” would be a profound sign, the other, I just don’t see it.

For me these are decent grounds that LXX, and thus Matthew, are a viable translation. Not a slam dunk, but hardly worthy of the disdain heaped on them by many.

40

I have no problem with the virgin birth BECAUSE conception doesn’t require sexual intercourse. It only requires fertilization. These days, using artificial insemination, a virgin birth is no more miraculous than a girl abstaining from sex. A virgin birth without artificial insemination is of course quite miraculous. But it doesn’t have to be magical. It could just be very very very unlikely and entirely due to God’s “providential timing.”

But the implication of this reasoning is that I DO have a problem with Jesus having no human biological parents just as I have a problem with Adam and Eve being magical golems of dust and bone. Neither of these is anything like 100% human.

I do not believe in evolutionary creationism on the basis of thinking God can do things in any whimsical way He chooses and only used evolution for the heck of it. I do not believe God’s omnipotence mean Gods can do anything by whatever nonsensical method we care to believe in. Logical consistency is the difference between reality and a dream world. You can dream about square circles and 1+1=3, but when you wake up to reality it is clearly just meaningless nonsense. God created the universe with a system of natural law because that is what it takes to create life. And we are a product of evolution because that is very much a part of what life is – not a magical stuff added to inanimate matter but a process of self-organization and learning.

…furthermore the Bible says Jesus has a human ancestry with genealogies given for Him.

In other words… Jesus being male has nothing to do with the virgin birth because this is not about parthenogenesis. Mammals are incapable of parthenogenesis. Fertilization in a virgin IS POSSIBLE! Parthenogenesis in a human woman is NOT POSSIBLE!!!