Virgin birth

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by drewder *
**well you’ll also find that in about 70 ad a large part of the old testament was changed by the jewish elders because they didn’t want to be associated with the Christians (such being bad for your health at the time)

**

Cite, please?

There was a debate on which books to include in the canon, and indeed, some books (the Apocrypha) were excluded. But to say that the Jewish Elders, in essence, forged their Bible to hide the evidence… cite?

**
but unless you think that mary slept around before she was married (highly unlikely) then you must accept that she was a virgin

**

Time for a primer in Jewish marriage law:

A Jewish marriage occurs in two stages: (1) erusin (“betrothal”) and (2)n’suin (marriage). In biblical and post-biblical times, the two stages were often separated by a year or more. Today, the two parts are done together.

The first part, erusin is really more than a betrothal. After erusin, the bride becomes forbidden to any other man, just as if she were a fully-married woman. To get out of it, she needs a full divorce.

The second part is where the groom brings the bride into his home. This is symbolized in today’s ceremonies by the chuppah (the wedding canopy).

Now then, there are three ways to accomplish erusin. One is by giving the bride something of value (this is universally accomplished with a ring today). The second way is to hand her a document stating that she is betrothed to him. The third way is… you’ve got it - cohabitation. While this method is no longer used today (sorry, guys!), it was used in Biblical times. So, in fact, Mary could have been betrothed to Joseph in that manner in a perfectly legal betrothal ceremony. Mary’s virginity is not, therefore, a given.

**
since even joesph was a little bit skeptical at first and why would isaiah say that he would show a sign that a young women shall concive as such things happen quite often and isn’t anything speical. after all with in 24 hours of him writing it many young women conviced. **

Um, please read Isaiah 7. Nothing happened in 24 hours.

The basic thrust of Isaiah 7 is that Ahaz, the king of Judah, is worried because two kings are ganging up on him. Isaiah tells him not to worry, his kingdom won’t be conquered. He even goes so far as to offer Ahaz a sign. The young woman (probably referring to some woman whom they either both knew or was present) who has already conceived (the Hebrew word there harah is past tense) will give birth to a child and before the child knows good from evil, the two kings would be wormfood. The whole point of the sign was to allieviate Ahaz’s worries. Now, then, if this verse is referring to Jesus, how would it calm Ahaz down if the fulfillment of the verse wouldn’t come until more than five centuries after he was dead?

Zev Steinhardt

[swstephe]

Nobody mentioned the magic word “parthenogenesis”: a fertilized ovum is produced from a single individual. Of course that would mean that the child would be a clone of the parent and female. It happens naturally in aphids. Some researchers have claimed to produce human parthenogenesis in the lab, (in stem cell research).

[moriah]

*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**CK, my understanding of the immaculate conception of Mary is not that Mary’s parents didn’t have sex, but just that Mary was born without the taint of Original Sin. I’m fairly certain that most Christians will agree that Mary was concieved in the old-fashioned way.

This is correct. Just to be pedantic, the theology of immaculate conception is that Mary was forgiven from original sin (i.e., first sin, the sin of Adam and Eve staining all humanity) before her conception, and thus, born without the stain of original sin. This is just to make clear that in Catholic theology, that even Mary needs salvation through the work of Christ. And, as you point out, she was conceived normally through non-virginal, two-person intercourse.

Oh, and Zev, your analysis of Isaiah 7 is in agreement with mainline Christian scholars. Even before the days of modern fundamentalists, it was common to pull out snippets of scripture for the sake of proving one’s position. The quote about a virgin [young women] bearing a child was used by the gospel writer as a prophecy for Jesus’ birth, when in fact, the fuller context of the quote would make that unlikely. Which, for mainline scholars, does not change their faith in Christ since one could argue that the birth was still virginal, or, even if the birth wasn’t virginal, Jesus could still be ‘the Son of God’ simply through God’s willing it.

Originally posted by drewder
well you’ll also find that in about 70 ad a large part of the old testament was changed by the jewish elders because they didn’t want to be associated with the Christians (such being bad for your health at the time)

Who ever told you this was profoundly ignorant or lied. No mainline Christian scholar (Catholic, Epicsopalian, Lutheran, etc…) will tell you this. There is no documentary evidence for this. In 70 AD, Christians were officially excommunicated from the synagogues, but the Jews did not change the Hebrew scriptures to make them anti-Christian. Scriptures are sacred text, no one changes their sacred texts lightly. What’s the chance of Christian elders changing the New Testament to make anti-Mormon or anti-Scientology statements?

but unless you think that mary slept around before she was married (highly unlikely) then you must accept that she was a virgin since even joesph was a little bit skeptical at first and

The source of Mary’s virginal birth is the same source of Joseph reacting to Mary’s pregnancy. So, if your’e skeptical of one point of data in a text, it’s pretty easy to be skeptical of the validity of the supporting evidence from the same text.

why would isaiah say that he would show a sign that a young women shall concive as such things happen quite often and isn’t anything speical. after all with in 24 hours of him writing it many young women conviced.

The child was most likely a soon-to-be-born royal heir, and as such, was a time-marker ["…in the reign of Hezekiah…"], or a prime actor in the upcoming events. This was not just ‘some kid.’

Peace.

Exegetical hermeunetics… fun!

[andros]

Wow. All this over one little throwaway joke in a column.

[Chronos]

So, in fact, Mary could have been betrothed to Joseph in that manner in a perfectly legal betrothal ceremony. Mary’s virginity is not, therefore, a given.

Taking the relevant scripture passages as a given, and also taking as given that Mary was virtuous, she was a virgin. Her virtue implies that she hasn’t had sex with anyone other than Joseph (her betrothed), and the fact that Joseph is surprised at her pregnancy and originally takes it as cause for divorce implies that she didn’t have sex with Joseph, either. There’s also the line “How can this be, since I have not known man?”. Unless “knowing man” means something other than the way it’s usually interpreted, this also says that she was a virgin.

As for erusin by cohabitation, do you mean cohabitation or sexual intercourse? Let’s be frank, here, since “cohabitation” means living together, which looks like it would correspond to the n’suin step of marriage.

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by Chronos *
**Taking the relevant scripture passages as a given, and also taking as given that Mary was virtuous, she was a virgin. Her virtue implies that she hasn’t had sex with anyone other than Joseph (her betrothed), and the fact that Joseph is surprised at her pregnancy and originally takes it as cause for divorce implies that she didn’t have sex with Joseph, either. There’s also the line “How can this be, since I have not known man?”. Unless “knowing man” means something other than the way it’s usually interpreted, this also says that she was a virgin.

**

Fair enough.

**
As for erusin by cohabitation, do you mean cohabitation or sexual intercourse? Let’s be frank, here, since “cohabitation” means living together, which looks like it would correspond to the n’suin step of marriage. **

No, I meant intercourse. I was simply couching it in more delicate terms.

Zev Steinhardt

[paulapdt]

*Originally posted by swstephe *
**Nobody mentioned the magic word “parthenogenesis”: a fertilized ovum is produced from a single individual. Of course that would mean that the child would be a clone of the parent and female. It happens naturally in aphids. Some researchers have claimed to produce human parthenogenesis in the lab, (in stem cell research). **

In High School Biology, that was referred to as “asexual reproduction” i.e. involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or germ cells. This is typically applicable to single-cell organisms.
Back to the definition of “virgin” which is not the same as “asexual” there had to have been introduction of a fertilizing cell(s) somehow. Being strictly scientific here, but yet also believing that God can do all things, either a male sperm or a fertilized ovum (the source of which, presumably being God the Father) could have been implanted into Mary while in an altered state of consciousness, such as a hypnotic trance (induced by supernatural means, perhaps) where she was devoid of sensation, emotion, volition, and thought. Therefore, she could quite rightly say that she had “known no man”.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

<< Therefore, she could quite rightly say that she had “known no man”. >>

And Fred Noman was notorious for his philandering.

[hyjyljyj]

I read once that somewhere in the portion of the Bible called the “New Testament” there is a reference to Joseph pondering taking Mary to the customary place for stoning, which was his right since she was pregnant but not by him. And the thing that made him have a change of heart was that this 15-yr-old young lady had been raped by some men known to him. (Aside from the inference that Jesus’s biological father was a rapist, certainly Joseph’s decision is up at the top of the long history of good moves.) Does anyone know if there is any validity to this explanation, or whence it came?

Also, as to the ‘fulfilling of the prophecy of Isaiah’ reference…if the story of the virgin birth were actually fabricated, would it not have been convenient and desirable to make it mesh with some earlier prophecy in order to make it seem more believable and holy at the time?

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by hyjyljyj *
**I read once that somewhere in the portion of the Bible called the “New Testament” there is a reference to Joseph pondering taking Mary to the customary place for stoning, which was his right since she was pregnant but not by him.

**

And that would not be in accordence with normative Jewish law. While, under certain circumstances, stoning was the punishment for a “betrothed” woman cheating on her “husband,” in order to be carried out, she would have had to have a trial where it was proved that not only did she willingly have sex with another man, but that she was warned beforehand of the consequences of her action. And even then, it would no longer be Joseph’s choice on whether or not to have Mary stoned.

**
Also, as to the ‘fulfilling of the prophecy of Isaiah’ reference…if the story of the virgin birth were actually fabricated, would it not have been convenient and desirable to make it mesh with some earlier prophecy in order to make it seem more believable and holy at the time? **

Maybe, but Isaiah 7 is clearly not a messianic prophecy. The whole context of the paragraph argues against it. Again, I ask the question… how valid a sign would a virgin birth have been to Ahaz to allieviate his fears if the fulfillment of that sign would not happen until more than five centuries after his death?

Zev Steinhardt

[charlesh]

Jesus Haploid Christ!

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

Maybe this is just legend, since I can’t find a cite for it, but I was told by a friend who’s an obstretician that virgin births were not in any unique – there is usually one every few years in the USA.

This referred to a virgin by the classic definition (hymen still present); not virgin as in ‘not had sexual activity’.

She said that this happened when various types of sexual activity (rubbing without penetration, inter-femoral intercourse, etc.) resulted in sperm in or near the outer area of the vagina, and occasionally an energetic sperm actually swims far enough to enter the vagina. And she said that in modern girls, given the physical activity, sports, etc. that is common nowdays, the hymen is often not completely sealed, and on occasion a sperm can make it thru and encounter an egg. (And it only takes one!)

So she said that, while unusual, it’s not completely unknown for obstreticians to encounter a young woman who has never been penetrated and still has a hymen present, but who has conceived and is pregnant. She said this could arguably be considered a virgin birth, though obstreticians didn’t call it that, to avoid religious battles. But it was known enough to be joked about at their conventions.

Has anyone else ever heard of this? Can any doctor tell me if this is possible, or was she just having fun telling a tall tale to a gullible person like me?