So the analysis method will accept the words of the Bible as true, except whem they imply a supernatural solution?
sigh
The Bible does report that well before Mary was pregnant, she was visited by the angel Gabriel. The substance of their conversation was Gabriel’s telling Mary she would soon have a child, and Mary asking, bewildered, “How can this be, since I have not been with man?”
Either we discount this incidence entirely, or we discount only Gabriel’s being an angel.
Which is it?
If the former, we’re back to square zero. No specific person is any more likely than another. We can posit that Mary got pregnant after a wild Nazareth Singles Night dance, and fearing to tell her betrothed, made up a rather unique defense. (“Honey, see, it wasn’t like that. This ANGEL came to me! I swear!”)
In my view, the problem with this analysis is that it leaves unanswered the rather large coincidence that her Son grew up to have such… fame. In other words, what are the odds that this simple deception of Mary’s part would actually bear fruit, so to speak.
Of course, it is possible that all the Nativity events were created after the fact out of whole cloth, in order to bolster the reputation of Jesus.
As should be obvious by now, I don’t think that’s the case, but the reader is invited to draw his own conclusions.
- Rick
See also Matt 1:22, where after discussing Mary’s being with child, we find: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” This is contextually weaker than the Luke reference, but in that he was quoting the Old Testament’s prophecy, it’s clear he meant ‘virgin’ in the strict sense, not this meaning you describe above.