Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 - the infamous Immanuel passage. The Greek LXX translation used by Matthew mistranslated the Hebrew word, almah (“young woman”) as parthenon, (“virgin”), but more significanly the passage in question is not a Messianic prophecy anyway, but refers to the son of King Ahaz. Within the context of the story in Isaiah, the kid isn’t even anything special but is just used as a marker for the time that the enemies of Ahaz will be destroyed. “Immanuel” is not the Messiah, and the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter. The Immanuel passage was never seen as a Messianic prophecy either before or after Christianity, and there has never been any expectation that the Jewish Messiah will be born of a virgin, and, as has been pointed out, a virgin birth would disqualify anyone as the Messiah anyway since the Messiah has to be descended from David specifically through his father (and through his father and his father, etc).
Why Matthew and Luke chose to make Mary a virgin, I don’t think we have a clear answer for (a misunderstanding of the LXX would explain Matthew but not Luke), but it didn’t come from any Jewish tradition or expectation. It probably had more to do with Classical Greco-Roman motifs of demi-gods, and gods consorting with human women.
Except that the story is nothing like the Classical demi-gods story & more akin to the miraculous tho not virginal conceptions by barren Israelite women such as Sarah, Rachel and Hannah.
Just for the record, while all that is how you see it, none of it is Catholic doctrine. In Catholic doctrine, Jesus wasn’t a “nephlium”. He was fully God and at the same time, fully human, and unique, in that it was the first and only time God manifested Himself as a human being, and the Being, through which Mary was conceived was no angel, but the Holy Spirit Himself.
Doesn’t Zoroastrianism also have a virgin birth? I had a philosophy teacher that referred to Christianity as “warmed over Zoroastrianism” because of this and other elements that Christianity allegedly borrowed.
“Sex is evil” is not part of any mainstream Christian doctrine, with the possible exception of the Shakers (which is why they’re not around anymore). Christians tend to value chastity, but also celibrate sex within the context of marriage. Please point to any Christian source that claims sex is evil regardless of context.
Those are not mutually exclusive. Many if not most OT prophecies recognized by Chrisitans were not intended to be messianic prophecies at the time. There is no contradiction in saying the passage referred to the son of Ahaz and was divine prophecy of the future messiah.
That’s the Jewish interpretation of that passsage, but needless to say Christians have re-interpreted the passage going all the way back to the Gospels themselves.
If it’s a myth without a factual basis, I agree it probably arises from the mistranslation. Luke probably heard the story from a source that made the same mistake as Matthew.
I you ever run into this philosophy teacher again, inform him that (a) we have virtually no evidence of Zoroastrianism being present in Palestine in the first century, hence no way that the early Christians could have copied from it, and (b) we know very little about Zoroastrian beliefs in the early centuries. The chief source we have is a collection of texts known as the Avesta, written several centuries after the founding of Christianity. Hence, if the few slim similarities between the two religions aren’t best explained by coincidence, it was probably the Zoroastrians borrowing elements from Christianity and not the other way around.
If they weren’t intended as Messianic prohecies by the authors, then they weren’t Messianic prophecies. There is no “at the time.” Authorial intent doesn’t change over time, and Isaiah 7:14 clearly has no Messianic intent, then, now or ever.
How is that not a contradiction?
Christians can reinterpret it all they want, but their interpretations cannot change the original authorial intent. I can believe that Citizen Kane is really all about me, but that doesn’t make it so.
If you believe that God inspired the prophecy, there’s nothing stopping it applying on a literal level to Ahaz, and on a figurative or hidden level to a future messiah. The author is Isaiah, but the author is also God.
Christianity isn’t the only religion to believe in teachings that both have an obvious meaning and a hidden meaning.
The author’s intent is irrelevent - the author does not have to know they are prophesying. Genesis and the Psalms are full of Messianic prophecy, too, that were unintentional by the author(s).
The Zoroastrian influences on Christianity are indirect and come through that religion’s influence on Judaism after the Babylonian exile.
Some of the elements of Judaism and Christianity that come from Zorastrianism include the eschatological view of time, the belief in a an end of the world, resurrection of the dead and day of judgement, the belief in a cosmological battle between forces of “good and evil,” and the belief in an evil anti-God/“Satan” type figure opposed to the “good” God.
You’re completely wrong on your dating of the Avestas, by the way. Most scholars date the oldest parts linguistically to the 2nd millenium BCE, over a thousand years before Christianity, and several hundred years before Judaism.
By the way, JP Holding is an absolute joke of a cite.
From my understanding of Christian doctrine and hearing evangelical preachers
When Adam ate the forbidden fruit and learned of good and evil sin entered God’s creation and with it, physical and spiritual death for all mankind. God cannot tolerate any sin, so even the best among us were doomed to physical and spiritual death. But God so loved the world, etc.
For Jesus sacrifice to be able to conquer death and for fulfillment of prophecies, it was necessary for Jesus to be without sin, and born of a virgin. Jesus conquered death and redeemed all mankind who believe and accept God’s gift of his only son.
I’ve heard several protestant preachers link virgin birth to Jesus being without sin and thus able to be a sacrifice to redeem all mankind.
I’d never heard the Mary was without sin as well , doctrine but it’s linked to the same theology.
I always thought it was a translation error. Stuff translated from Hebrew to Greek and then to, say, Latin, loses quite a bit in the process. IIRC, it had to do with the Greek word for young woman and possibly virgin (sorry, I don’t remember exactly what the issue was anymore…it’s been a long time). Of course, I could be completely mis-remembering or completely conflating the whole thing, so grain of salt.
I believe the doctrine varies a bit among different protestant denominations.
Some believe that all mankind shares in original sin, while others believe Adam and Eve’s actions only allowed sin to enter creation and we are each judged for our own sin. Some believe infants and unaccountable children {that definition also varies}
The rub is that ANY sin is unacceptable so according to that view of justice, a serial rapist and murderer and the guy who lied to his wife about looking fat in those pants are both bound for eternal punishment unless they accept the gift of redemption by believing in Jesus as Saviour.
And please, any Christians are invited to correct my understanding if it’s faulty.
I was a Christian in my about 30. After doing a lot of studying it no longer makes any sense that a supreme being would require some physical sacrifice to forgive us, or that Christian doctrine represents any concept of justice.
It’s a doctrine built from certain interpretations of certain passages correct? Just as the Holy Trinity, while it’s not specifically named in scripture , it’s has become accepted as doctrine by some based interpretations.
Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:–
13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
etc.
1 Corinthians 15:22 (American Standard Version)
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
