Your AI seems to misunderstand the meaning of “Messiah”.
A related question I had, in light of the Scripture reading here on Christmas Eve:
As I understand Catholic teaching (although I’m not Catholic), Jesus was an only child, Mary remained always a virgin, and references to Jesus’s brothers or sisters are either metaphorical or refer to cousins or close friends.
And yet the New Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims 1899 American edition, the NRSV Anglicized Catholic edition and the Wycliffe Bible (which I accessed at Biblegateway.com) all use the phrase “her firstborn son” in referring to Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem. Luke 2:1-7. Why refer to him as “firstborn” if there were no others?
Because a firstborn son has special significance in Jewish culture, regardless of whether there were ever any others.
It’s a call-back that one plague in Egypt.
Yeah, they are likely wrong here, but it is true that the term ‘brother" was used somewhat loosely- and we still do that- like :Band of Brothers’ etc. But to me James was indeed Jesus real life brother. In fact one of the period mentions of Jesus is mostly about James.
According to Luke, Mary did consent. After Gabriel tells her that God has chosen her, and that the baby will be great and called Son of the Most High, etc., she replies(Luke 1:38),
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
FWIW (not much, probably), I was raised Catholic and attended a parochial school. There was a lot of emphasis on Mary’s consent, how she could have refused, how humble and pious she was in her reply, even though she would have known her way would be hard, and so on. We were supposed to see Mary as a role model for assenting to whatever God might ask of us while also understanding that such sinful creatures as the likes of us could never have been candidates for such a momentous assignment.
I don’t think that there can be true consent when someone (e.g. an omnipotent deity) is contemplating a relationship with a human. Big power differential.
On the other hand, she might have made the calculation that any difficulty over the next few years would be worth the investment once she was the mother to a demigod (I don’t know how clearly Gabriel explained the who Trinity thing to her, as I think that doctrine is post-New Testament). So it might be one of those things where she couldn’t technically give consent, in the modern understanding, but did for all practical purposes.
Yes. God knew she had to say yes. He made that decision for her.
Plus she was certainly underage.
She is supposed to have been around 16, however, that was about the normal age to get married back then. By no means “underaged”.
She was much likely closer to 13 or 14 when Jesus was conceived.
But yes you are ultimately right, age and consent mean nothing to a God. If God thinks it’s ok to have sex with someone, them they’re going to have sex with them, age be damned and whose to say they are wrong? In fact they can’t be, by definition.
Cite? There’s certainly a lot of tradition that she was young, and if she weren’t then it’d be notable that she wasn’t married to anyone else yet, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a specific number put to her.
Oh there’s no biblical evidence for an exact age. It’s mostly tradition lore etc
I don’t think the conception of Jesus involved physical sex. At least, not by the time the Catholics started talking about it. Intimacy, sure, so clearly sexualized behaviour in a first-century Jewish context for a mixed-gendered couple.
Then again, I’m not sure God has gender. He was using male pronouns at the time, but I’d describe him as gender-fluid.
As far as I’m aware, it is not known whether Jesus had a Y-chromosome, though later artistic representations show him as conventionally masculine in appearance (beard etc.), so maybe.
Yes, which is why 16 was picked by scholars- anything older and 'why isnt she at least betrothed yet?". 16 was about the right age for a woman to get married back then, in that society. No age is stated or even implied in the Bible. She was still alive when Jesus was crucified , so that would make her 46 or 49- a decent age but hardly ancient.
He’s haploid. That’s what the “H” stands for. 
A girl could be married at 12. She might have been as old as 16, and might possibly be called “young”, but she could have been significantly younger. Early Jews tried to marry both sons and daughters before they were 20.
You’re really on a roll today. That was great! Thank you.
We’re talking Christian–specifically, Catholic doctrine here, and the Catholic doctrine, as I understand it, is that Mary had the option of refusing, and that the refusal would NOT have been pro forma. (“You dared say NO? Well, too bad for you, missy!”)
I think that Catholic theologians–and I’m certainly not one–would argue that God has a relationship with every human. If you’re referring to a sexual relationship, Luke is very clear that the relationship is not sexual:
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
However, let’s note that the beliefs of Jews in Jesus’ time made conception without a male possible and credible (Bolding mine.):
As present-day readers, we tend to assume that this language was understood metaphorically and is simply attributing the whole process in a general way to God as the creative source of life. But the matter may not be so simple. Ancient biology and Jewish theology were not kept in separate spheres—but intermingled. Scriptural texts share the dominant Aristotelian view of how conception occurs but adapt it distinctively so that there are three parties involved—God, the male with his seed, and the female with the blood or fluids of her womb—and all three parties are understood to be actively involved in the production of a human fetus.
…
What becomes clear is that, in terms of ancient biology, even without a human father, Jesus would have been seen as fully human. His mother, Mary, provided his human substance, and in this case God, through the agency of the divine Spirit, supplied the animating principle instead of a human father.
–From the Biblical Archaeology Society Library publication, “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time.)” by Andrew Lincoln