Did Mary have to be a Virgin for Jesus to have been the Christ?
- Thread starter Radrook
- Start date
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14
Therefore it is impossible for Christ to have born without Mary having been a virgin at the time... Isaiah 7:14 says that he shall be conceived of a virgin,.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The sentence is awkward and still not clear.
Did you mean Mary had to be a virgin because the prophecy called for a Virgin?
Or Mary could not be a virgin because she gave birth.
From your statement I cannot determine which if either point is being made.
Upvote
0
I believe...
Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's conception
That she and Joseph had children afterwords
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; - Luke 2:36
I believe that Mary dwelt as Anna the prophetess... A period of time with husband as a virgin. In Mary's case, at least nine months.
Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's conception
That she and Joseph had children afterwords
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; - Luke 2:36
I believe that Mary dwelt as Anna the prophetess... A period of time with husband as a virgin. In Mary's case, at least nine months.
Upvote
0
Nihilist Virus
Infectious idea
Even if Isaiah 7:14 is discussing a virgin birth, the prophecy cannot be about Jesus.
Isaiah was speaking with King Ahaz who was worried about his city being sacked. Isaiah said that the king's enemies would not prevail, and that the Lord would send a sign as confirmation: that a "virgin" would give birth and name the child Immanuel. Before the child would be old enough to know right from wrong, the king's enemies would fall. The prophecy necessarily succeeded or failed half a millennium before Christ was born.
Upvote
0
StTruth
Well-Known Member
It doesn't have to be one or the other. In life, as in many things, there are a myriad of possibilities. Nihilist Virus could mean any of these:
1. There is no mention of virginity in the prophecy and so there was no virgin birth.
2. Even if Isaiah mentioned a virgin specifically, the period of his prophecy precludes any reference to Jesus. But since we know not of any virgin birth in history, the prophecy was unfulfilled.
The prophecy, by its reference to King Ahaz, can't possibly refer to Jesus but that does not mean that the prophecy is true and it MUST have been fulfilled in some other hapless female. Your question presumes that the prophecy in Isaiah is true and was fulfilled, a presumption Nihilist Virus obviously does not accept.
I hope you understand why your last post is totally wrong and irrelevant.
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,703
- 2,335
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 28, 2015
- 14,615
- 7,113
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
And I can point to "evidence" that the earth is flat.
But outside of this "evidence" do you have evidence (scripture) that Paul believed Jesus was "made"?....not that I will put much faith in the opinion of an atheist (Carrier) when it come to scripture.....just say'n.
Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion
But outside of this "evidence" do you have evidence (scripture) that Paul believed Jesus was "made"?....not that I will put much faith in the opinion of an atheist (Carrier) when it come to scripture.....just say'n.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Knowledge of prophetic utterances is important when looking at the text.
There are prophecies which begin as early as Genesis which are built upon as part of other prophecies. The purpose of which is to ensure the prophet's proclamation in the Name of YHWH has an immediate fulfillment.
In Isaiah 7(ff) we have the one fulfillment of a child age as it relates to the king's enemies.
The virgin birth prophecy adds to the Genesis 3 promise of the woman's seed would put enmity between serpent and the woman. Showing again this birth would be something special or out of the norm. We see this again in Jeremiah 31:22.
Prophecies in the TaNaKh are not straight forward for the post-modern mind. We want the Bible to say what we mean, instead of looking at the progressive revelation as God provides. We usually see prophecies in the TaNaKh have an immediate meaning for the audience receiving the utterance. That's important to test the prophet if they are true or false.
YHWH took the Isaiah 7 (ff) utterances of Isaiah to communicate Judah would be delivered in the immediate future. They were and the sign was true. YHWH also took the time to explain He would provide Deliverance through a virgin birth, thus elaborating more on the woman's seed of Genesis 3. Then, as I mentioned in Jeremiah 31:22 we get another bit of the picture.
Upvote
0
Interesting thread.
To the OP ... based on a cursory reading of some of the themes of the scriptures, it would seem to me that Mary being a virgin was a necessity. The reason being, a theme that seems to be prevalent concerning the "manufacture" of humans/people from beginning to end in the scriptures, specifically involving procreation. I will try not to get too long winded, and this also speaks to Adam being "perfect" or not as well ... again, a cursory reading and thus my observations, and I realize some of these points are arguable even among self professed Christians:
* The idea Adam (and Eve) were created "perfect" is not something I see in the account concerning their creation. You don't see anywhere in Genesis 2 where Yawheh Elohim blesses them and calls them "good" or tells them to even procreate for that matter (Adam and Eve). Adam is formed and then placed in a specific place (Eden) and given specific functions. Eve comes later, formed by taking something from Adam, and again, I don't see where they are told to procreate, called "good" or even blessed. Contrast this with the people created in Genesis 1 … Elohim creates them, makes them male and female from the start, and blessed them, telling them to fill the earth, procreate, etc, and calls them good along with everything Elohim created in those accounts.
So already I see two contrasts … it's obviously common to assume that the people mentioned in Genesis 1 are one and the same as Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, but it doesn't seem that straightforward when I read it.
Genesis 1 shows where Elohim creates people (male/female from the start), blesses them, calls them good, tells them to fill the earth, etc.
Genesis 2 shows Yahweh Elohim creating Adam, never blesses him, never calls him good, and is not told to fill the earth but rather is placed in a specific place and given a function there. Not only is there no female for Adam at first, but apparently other options were considered (from amongst other beings) before Eve was made from Adam. After Eve was made, they were still not told to procreate nor to fill the earth … to the contrary, being outside of the Garden in the rest of the earth was exile from Eden.
The first mention of anything having to do with Adam and Eve's procreating, involves the serpent and the consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and their interacting with the serpent and the "curses". So again, the first time I see anything concerning their ability to procreate, is in the form of a *curse*. The first curses address issues with seed and conflict between competing seeds, issues involving childbirth, instinctual types of behavior between Adam and Eve, and this is when Eve first got her name, and it referenced her motherhood.
So the idea that Adam (and Eve) were ever "perfect" or created perfect, I don't see that. Not only do I not see that, I see the opposite … instead of being blessed, they are cursed. Instead of being called "good", they are never called good, nor bad. They are not told to procreate, nor even given place in the earth apart from Eden … being in the rest of the earth was due to their exile from the original home. The first mention we see of their ability to even procreate involves curses, and results from their interacting with the serpent and the fruit, and this even effects the serpents seed as well.
* Eventually, everyone in Adam's line (save for Noah and those on the Ark) would be wiped out. It's not until Noah and the aftermath of the flood, that we even see anyone related to Adam being blessed and told to procreate. It's the first time, as far as I can tell, that any being in the scriptural accounts who is related to Adam in some fashion and the result of Adam and Eve procreating, is actually blessed and told to procreate. And of course a seemingly key aspect of the accounts take place during the time between Adam and Eve's first offspring up to Noah, and that is the account of the Sons of God procreating with human women and producing the Nephilim. In other words, from Adam and Eve up to the time of Noah, I find the following theme:
The production of people in Adam's line or related to Adam and the rest of the earth after Adam and Eve enter it, are filled with curses involving interaction with the serpent (whatever or whoever the serpent was/is) along with Sons of God (arguably beings often viewed as angelic). The culmination of which ends in the need to wipe everything and everyone off the face of the earth, save for what Yahweh chooses to save and then AFTERWARDS, bless, etc.
* The next major event involving the production of people specifically chosen by God, where God is involved in their creation and production, is Abraham and Sarah. In that account, we see Yahweh with other beings (arguably angelic beings again) involved in the production of more humans, by using Sarah and causing her to ovulate passed her time. Yahweh and/or the other beings apparently have to visit her at a specific time, in order to get her pregnant, and it apparently involved Abraham because Genesis 21 refers to Isaac as his son, bore to him, etc. This doesn't produce perfect beings either, rather it produces the nation of Israel … a nation in constant struggle with God. So we have here a miraculous birth, one involving a faithful person (Abraham) and Sarah and either direct intervention by Yahweh or more intervention by angelic beings in order to get her to ovulate, yet again, no perfect beings are produced.
* When we get to Jesus, we see various methods of human "manufacture" having been performed, and all have failed. Adam and Eve were directly formed by Yahweh Elohim, but never blessed to procreate, or called good, and the first mention of their procreation involves interaction with the serpent and the fruit, the result of which are curses and conflict. Next, we see mixing and interacting between the offspring of Adam and Eve after their exile and with the rest of the world, which would later involve Sons of God causing the impregnation of women … the entire world went astray and God started over, wiping them all out, picking out a select few. Then they were blessed for the first time, but this still didn't produce "perfect" people. Next, we have a miraculous birth … involving Yahweh and perhaps other beings, allowing Sarah to get pregnant by arguably her husband Abraham. But this didn't produce perfect beings either. So no "combination" worked. Adam and other options weren't sufficient. Adam and Eve and the serpent, didn't produce the desired results. Adam and Eve's offspring along with other humans and the Sons of God … didn't produce the desired results. Wiping the slate clean, hand picking Noah and some others, then taking Abraham and miraculously intervening with his wife, didn't work.
By the time we get to Mary … it would seem to make sense, if we follow the theme as it was progressing, that what might work, is to produce a being, involving a human female who was still in the line of Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc (since another theme throughout is the redemption of those beings in relation to the original Adam and Eve, etc) BUT who could reproduce a child without a human male, or angelic intervention with the biology of the female. And that's what we see apparently in the birth of Jesus: the production of a being who is born of such a human female, but without the direct intervention of a 1) male 2) angelic being. In the account of Jesus' birth, the only interaction with angels apparently involves them foretelling his birth, etc … not visiting the womb of Mary, no visits by Yahweh or Elohim, no seed of a human male, etc. The miraculous birth in this instance, is the product of direct intervention by the Holy Spirit. This deviates from the cycle of undesired results throughout the narrative of the scriptures, and produces a person who will have the nature of the humans before them, but according to the scripture, overcomes that nature by not "sinning", etc … and we see Jesus Himself apparently echo the procreative requirements by mentioning being "born again" and talk in the NT of those born of the Spirit, etc. It is a reproductive process to produce a new person, one that comes from human women (water) and Spirit (like Christ).
All of that to say, I would think it would be necessary that Mary was a virgin, to stick with a theme I see in the scripture concerning not only the redemption of those in the Adam/Eve/serpent line, but the nature in which the procreative efforts to redeem them takes place. Any introduction of human male seed, angelic seed, etc … "taints" the outcome in the narrative. Mary herself has no need to be "perfect", to the contrary, she needs to have a culmination of abominable heritage and anything/everything the offspring of Adam/Eve/Noah/Abraham/etc had in order to make the "redemption of the human" in the narrative. However the introduction of male seed, perhaps even years before, may corrupt or taint the desired result, as well as the introduction of angelic intervention (which may have been a factor in the pregnancy of Sarah as well).
To the OP ... based on a cursory reading of some of the themes of the scriptures, it would seem to me that Mary being a virgin was a necessity. The reason being, a theme that seems to be prevalent concerning the "manufacture" of humans/people from beginning to end in the scriptures, specifically involving procreation. I will try not to get too long winded, and this also speaks to Adam being "perfect" or not as well ... again, a cursory reading and thus my observations, and I realize some of these points are arguable even among self professed Christians:
* The idea Adam (and Eve) were created "perfect" is not something I see in the account concerning their creation. You don't see anywhere in Genesis 2 where Yawheh Elohim blesses them and calls them "good" or tells them to even procreate for that matter (Adam and Eve). Adam is formed and then placed in a specific place (Eden) and given specific functions. Eve comes later, formed by taking something from Adam, and again, I don't see where they are told to procreate, called "good" or even blessed. Contrast this with the people created in Genesis 1 … Elohim creates them, makes them male and female from the start, and blessed them, telling them to fill the earth, procreate, etc, and calls them good along with everything Elohim created in those accounts.
So already I see two contrasts … it's obviously common to assume that the people mentioned in Genesis 1 are one and the same as Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, but it doesn't seem that straightforward when I read it.
Genesis 1 shows where Elohim creates people (male/female from the start), blesses them, calls them good, tells them to fill the earth, etc.
Genesis 2 shows Yahweh Elohim creating Adam, never blesses him, never calls him good, and is not told to fill the earth but rather is placed in a specific place and given a function there. Not only is there no female for Adam at first, but apparently other options were considered (from amongst other beings) before Eve was made from Adam. After Eve was made, they were still not told to procreate nor to fill the earth … to the contrary, being outside of the Garden in the rest of the earth was exile from Eden.
The first mention of anything having to do with Adam and Eve's procreating, involves the serpent and the consequences of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and their interacting with the serpent and the "curses". So again, the first time I see anything concerning their ability to procreate, is in the form of a *curse*. The first curses address issues with seed and conflict between competing seeds, issues involving childbirth, instinctual types of behavior between Adam and Eve, and this is when Eve first got her name, and it referenced her motherhood.
So the idea that Adam (and Eve) were ever "perfect" or created perfect, I don't see that. Not only do I not see that, I see the opposite … instead of being blessed, they are cursed. Instead of being called "good", they are never called good, nor bad. They are not told to procreate, nor even given place in the earth apart from Eden … being in the rest of the earth was due to their exile from the original home. The first mention we see of their ability to even procreate involves curses, and results from their interacting with the serpent and the fruit, and this even effects the serpents seed as well.
* Eventually, everyone in Adam's line (save for Noah and those on the Ark) would be wiped out. It's not until Noah and the aftermath of the flood, that we even see anyone related to Adam being blessed and told to procreate. It's the first time, as far as I can tell, that any being in the scriptural accounts who is related to Adam in some fashion and the result of Adam and Eve procreating, is actually blessed and told to procreate. And of course a seemingly key aspect of the accounts take place during the time between Adam and Eve's first offspring up to Noah, and that is the account of the Sons of God procreating with human women and producing the Nephilim. In other words, from Adam and Eve up to the time of Noah, I find the following theme:
The production of people in Adam's line or related to Adam and the rest of the earth after Adam and Eve enter it, are filled with curses involving interaction with the serpent (whatever or whoever the serpent was/is) along with Sons of God (arguably beings often viewed as angelic). The culmination of which ends in the need to wipe everything and everyone off the face of the earth, save for what Yahweh chooses to save and then AFTERWARDS, bless, etc.
* The next major event involving the production of people specifically chosen by God, where God is involved in their creation and production, is Abraham and Sarah. In that account, we see Yahweh with other beings (arguably angelic beings again) involved in the production of more humans, by using Sarah and causing her to ovulate passed her time. Yahweh and/or the other beings apparently have to visit her at a specific time, in order to get her pregnant, and it apparently involved Abraham because Genesis 21 refers to Isaac as his son, bore to him, etc. This doesn't produce perfect beings either, rather it produces the nation of Israel … a nation in constant struggle with God. So we have here a miraculous birth, one involving a faithful person (Abraham) and Sarah and either direct intervention by Yahweh or more intervention by angelic beings in order to get her to ovulate, yet again, no perfect beings are produced.
* When we get to Jesus, we see various methods of human "manufacture" having been performed, and all have failed. Adam and Eve were directly formed by Yahweh Elohim, but never blessed to procreate, or called good, and the first mention of their procreation involves interaction with the serpent and the fruit, the result of which are curses and conflict. Next, we see mixing and interacting between the offspring of Adam and Eve after their exile and with the rest of the world, which would later involve Sons of God causing the impregnation of women … the entire world went astray and God started over, wiping them all out, picking out a select few. Then they were blessed for the first time, but this still didn't produce "perfect" people. Next, we have a miraculous birth … involving Yahweh and perhaps other beings, allowing Sarah to get pregnant by arguably her husband Abraham. But this didn't produce perfect beings either. So no "combination" worked. Adam and other options weren't sufficient. Adam and Eve and the serpent, didn't produce the desired results. Adam and Eve's offspring along with other humans and the Sons of God … didn't produce the desired results. Wiping the slate clean, hand picking Noah and some others, then taking Abraham and miraculously intervening with his wife, didn't work.
By the time we get to Mary … it would seem to make sense, if we follow the theme as it was progressing, that what might work, is to produce a being, involving a human female who was still in the line of Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc (since another theme throughout is the redemption of those beings in relation to the original Adam and Eve, etc) BUT who could reproduce a child without a human male, or angelic intervention with the biology of the female. And that's what we see apparently in the birth of Jesus: the production of a being who is born of such a human female, but without the direct intervention of a 1) male 2) angelic being. In the account of Jesus' birth, the only interaction with angels apparently involves them foretelling his birth, etc … not visiting the womb of Mary, no visits by Yahweh or Elohim, no seed of a human male, etc. The miraculous birth in this instance, is the product of direct intervention by the Holy Spirit. This deviates from the cycle of undesired results throughout the narrative of the scriptures, and produces a person who will have the nature of the humans before them, but according to the scripture, overcomes that nature by not "sinning", etc … and we see Jesus Himself apparently echo the procreative requirements by mentioning being "born again" and talk in the NT of those born of the Spirit, etc. It is a reproductive process to produce a new person, one that comes from human women (water) and Spirit (like Christ).
All of that to say, I would think it would be necessary that Mary was a virgin, to stick with a theme I see in the scripture concerning not only the redemption of those in the Adam/Eve/serpent line, but the nature in which the procreative efforts to redeem them takes place. Any introduction of human male seed, angelic seed, etc … "taints" the outcome in the narrative. Mary herself has no need to be "perfect", to the contrary, she needs to have a culmination of abominable heritage and anything/everything the offspring of Adam/Eve/Noah/Abraham/etc had in order to make the "redemption of the human" in the narrative. However the introduction of male seed, perhaps even years before, may corrupt or taint the desired result, as well as the introduction of angelic intervention (which may have been a factor in the pregnancy of Sarah as well).
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Perhaps take into consideration the creation of male and female in Genesis was stated to be in God's image and likeness. No other created being was given such a position or distinction.
The Hebrew is not as cut and dry when it is said "it is good." It is more concrete and in line with "functional." God created X and it was functional.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
orangeness365
Well-Known Member
Ruth was not of the Moabite group of people mentioned in Deuteronomy. Those people were wiped out from that land and taken over by Jews by the time of Ruth. So while she was from the land of Moab, her ancestry was actually Jewish. Don't you think that if that was a problem that King David and King Solomon would have been prevented from entering the congregation as well?
Check out this website. It explains the issue in more detail.
http://12tribehistory.com/was-ruth-a-moabite/
Upvote
0
Nihilist Virus
Infectious idea
The fact that Ruth was a Moabite is not contested in Christianity except in fringe circles. On top of that, her status as a Moabite is not something I'm using as a foothold to argue against Christianity because her placement in the ancestry of the kings does not disqualify the Davidic line as I already explained: the patriarchal society reckoned these things through the man. Ruth's involvement in Jesus' ancestry is only relevant in this scenario where Radrook is making his case in regards to "perfect" DNA. I'm not inclined to view your source until you explain what "perfect" DNA is. If that is not the case you're making, then I don't know why you even care about this issue.
Upvote
0
The males and females created in Genesis 1 by Elohim, were called "good". Going by your interpretation of "good", they were functional. According to Genesis 1, they were made in the image and after the likeness of Elohim.
Adam and Eve are not called "good" by Yahweh Elohim in Genesis 2, so by your interpretation of "good", are not functional. This would seem to fit, seeing as how they made choices that lead to their fall and subsequent need for redemption, etc. Genesis 2 doesn't say that Yahweh Elohim created Adam and Eve in anyone's image or likeness, rather it says that Adam was created from the ground. This is further echoed in 1 Corinthians 15, as Paul even points out that Adam is of the earth and we bear the image of the earthly man, highlighting the difference between Adam and Jesus. Paul also points out that death came through one man: Adam. So if the human beings in Genesis 1 who were made in the image and likeness of Elohim were "functional" and good, told to procreate and fill the earth ... and Adam was not yet functional, made of the earth, exiled from Eden with Eve out into the earth and brought death with him to the rest of the earth (including the people created in Genesis 1), then it would further support the idea that Adam and Eve were not "perfect", even when compared to the males and females made in the likeness of Elohim in Genesis 1. Colossians 1 states that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Not Adam. In other words, as I read it ... the humans in Genesis 1 were made in the image and likeness of Elohim ... Adam and Eve were made by Yahweh Elohim and of the earth ... Jesus *is* the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. I'm still not getting that Adam was perfect anywhere, quite the opposite.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
