Why was Mary a virgin?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

This will probably illustrate my real lack of biblical historical knowledge, but it is something that I've been trying to think through.

Ok, if we are to believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, why should that be a legitimate starting point to the whole story.

There are two aspects:

1) Mary was engaged to Joseph - but was it common practice back then (as it is now with many conservative types, but many many less than say 20 or 30 years ago) not to have sex before marriage? Did this type of behavior evolve from the old testament times?

2) If sex before marriage was not acceptable or normal, was it ok to be 'living together'? I assume that at least near the time she was to give birth, this would have been the case as they travelled together.

As I say, my historical knowledge of the social rules of the time is probably a bit lacking.

[Beady]

As I say, my historical knowledge of the social rules of the time is probably a bit lacking.

Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians still follow those rules (the real Fundies do, anyway). Illustration:

Some time ago, a cow-orker was processing a Muslim woman whose husband, already here as a Permanent Resident, was petitioning to have her made a Permanent Resident, as well. The documentation for the marriage was a little lacking, which was no reflection on the couple, so my cow-orker sent out a boilerplate request to the husband for further corroboration. The documents came in, all right, but they were accompanied by a cover letter literally damning my cow-orker to hell for suggesting that the wife was less than pure. There was enough in there that the entire package was sent to ICE for a ruling on whether it constituted a threat to a Federal officer.

ETA: I've also seen affidavits that describe how the sheets from the marriage bed are routinely displayed to the family the next morning, to verify the bride's chastity before the ceremony.

[chulbert]

Why was Dorothy from Kansas?

[Z]

Mary wasn't a virgin, in the modern sense of the term.

IIRC, the actual phrase used was something to the effect of Mary being an independent woman, or perhaps a single woman. The modern sexual idea of virginity isn't what was intended, it seems.

[Beady]

Mary wasn't a virgin, in the modern sense of the term.

To borrow a phrase: "Evidence?"

IIRC, the actual phrase used was something to the effect of Mary being an independent woman, or perhaps a single woman.

Book, chapter and verse? Oh, and which translation are you using?

The modern sexual idea of virginity isn't what was intended, it seems.

Precisely. Back then, a virgin was a woman who hadn't had sex.

[Beerina]

This will probably illustrate my real lack of biblical historical knowledge, but it is something that I've been trying to think through.

Ok, if we are to believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, why should that be a legitimate starting point to the whole story.

There are two aspects:

1) Mary was engaged to Joseph - but was it common practice back then (as it is now with many conservative types, but many many less than say 20 or 30 years ago) not to have sex before marriage? Did this type of behavior evolve from the old testament times?

2) If sex before marriage was not acceptable or normal, was it ok to be 'living together'? I assume that at least near the time she was to give birth, this would have been the case as they travelled together.

As I say, my historical knowledge of the social rules of the time is probably a bit lacking.

I never quite understood it myself. Their social relationship was like engagement, but was more serious than that, but not quite marriage. Evidently it meant they could be living together, or why would they be travelling together?

[drkitten]

Book, chapter and verse? Oh, and which translation are you using?

Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew.

The word used there is "almah" (please apologize for my using Latin letters instead of Hebrew), which more generally means "young woman." Perhaps the best direct translation into modern English is "maiden," which does double duty as referrring to a "young woman" (OED, sense 1) and "virgin" (OED, sense 2).

The Septuagint (the traditional Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the word "parthenos," which does strictly mean "virgin," to translate "almah." This is also the word used in the original Greek versions of the Gospel of Matthew.

Back then, a virgin was a woman who hadn't had sex.

Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden."

[Z]

Only the latter two Gospels refer to Mary as a 'virgin' in the latter sense of a woman who had not been with a man. Those closest to the event, do not. Paul's writings make no indication of Mary as a virgin; and as it is, the first two chapters of Luke may well be late additions to the scripture.

Not sure where I got that they used a term that had different meanings, though...

Pretty strong evidence, though, that Mary was not a virgin until someone decided to expand the story...

[Bikewer]

This was a matter of great contention not only amongst the earliest Jesus cults but even later on. Didn't they fight a war with a group of heretics over this?

Also, "virgin birth" was a sort of bona fides for important persons at the time.

The same had been indicated for a number of historical figures, ranging from Julius Ceasar to the Budda in various legends. One legend has Siddhartha emerging from the side of his mother, more-or-less fully formed.

[Z]

Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew.

The word used there is "almah" (please apologize for my using Latin letters instead of Hebrew), which more generally means "young woman." Perhaps the best direct translation into modern English is "maiden," which does double duty as referrring to a "young woman" (OED, sense 1) and "virgin" (OED, sense 2).

The Septuagint (the traditional Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the word "parthenos," which does strictly mean "virgin," to translate "almah." This is also the word used in the original Greek versions of the Gospel of Matthew.



Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden."

Thanks DK - my notes are missing :)

[Beady]

Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden."

What's a "maidenhead"?

Judges 21:12
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins, who had known no man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

So, it depends on context.

[Beady]

Pretty strong evidence, though, that Mary was not a virgin until someone decided to expand the story...

The evidence is only as strong as your bias, seems to me.

[drkitten]

So, it depends on context.

Actually, I submit that your quotation actually strengthens my point.

If the word "almah" actually meant "virgin," then it would have been unnecessary to add "who had known no man by lying with him" in that passage.

We wouldn't write in modern English that so-and-so is a virgin who hasn't had sex. That's redundant. But we might write that so-and-so is a young woman who hasn't had sex.

[drkitten]

What's a "maidenhead"?

A rock just outside Boston, if I remember right.

Less sarcastically, it's derived from sense 2 of the OED, obviously.

Which doesn't mean that sense 1 doesn't exist or even that sense 1 isn't primary.

[Z]

The evidence is only as strong as your bias, seems to me.

The irony of this statement amuses me.

No, Beady - the evidence is quite clear, actually. The earliest writings indicated Mary to be a maiden, or, by Hebrew culture of the time, a strong and unmarried woman (which was what almah referred to in Hebrew culture). Later writings attempted to change the birth of Jesus into something miraculous; so suddenly this young maiden became a virgin, too.

As to your 'maidenhead' comment: the term is from about the 13th century, and refers to virginity, yes - 'maiden' from 'maid' and 'head' from 'hood'. However, prior to the 13th century, the term didn't exist.

Given the strong hold of the pervasive modern attitudes about sex and virginity, it's no surprise that, by the 13th century, the words for unmarried woman would become synonymous with virgin. By the 13th century, sex (for women) was strictly for married women and whores.

You'll have to try a different tack, my friend.

[Tricky]

Maybe it's because she... um... had a great personality.

[drkitten]

So, it depends on context.

Oh, further to your Judges quote. The word in Judges translated as "virgin" is not actually "almah." The word used there is "bethulah."

"Almah" is used only a half-dozen times in the Old Testament, and in only one use (Gen. 24:43) is there even a suggestion of implied virginity. (Rebeccah, the future wife of Isaac, is described as an "almah." I suggest in context that that means "unmarried" rather than virginal.)

In Exodus 2:8, the elder sister of a baby boy is an "almah"'; nothing sexual about that context.

In 1 Chronicles 15:20, a psalm is to be played by a girls' choir.

In Psalms 68:25, a group of alamot play instruments. Again, a girls' choir.

Song of Songs 1:3: a man is described by saying that all the alamot adore him. Presumably it isn't just the virgins that adore him, if you know what I mean.

et cetera, et cetera.

[Z]

Maybe it's because she... um... had a great personality.

Oh please... like that mattered! She was rich! Rich, I tell you! Rich!!!

OK, well, she was probably rather well-off, and socially in the Jewish upper crust.

Personally, I think she was a heck of a manipulator. Probably deliberately ran to Bethlehem just to fulfill prophecy!

LOL!

[Blutarsky]

Both Almah and Bethulah have instances where they are defined as a term directly referring to "virgins" and "non-virgins." Neither term has a monopoly on the idea of someone who had not had sex.

Jewish scholars who translated the scriptures into the Greek translated Almah into "Parthenos," which does unequivocally mean virgin.

Luther (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/109830) actually argued that the terms were interchangable.

[Tricky]

Actually, another point (and it has been raised here before) is that in order to fulfill the prophesies, Jesus had to be descended from the line of King David. Mary wasn't, but Joseph was. This little switcheroo allows believers to have it both ways.

[fuelair]

Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians still follow those rules (the real Fundies do, anyway). Illustration:

Some time ago, a cow-orker was processing a Muslim woman whose husband, already here as a Permanent Resident, was petitioning to have her made a Permanent Resident, as well. The documentation for the marriage was a little lacking, which was no reflection on the couple, so my cow-orker sent out a boilerplate request to the husband for further corroboration. The documents came in, all right, but they were accompanied by a cover letter literally damning my cow-orker to hell for suggesting that the wife was less than pure. There was enough in there that the entire package was sent to ICE for a ruling on whether it constituted a threat to a Federal officer.

ETA: I've also seen affidavits that describe how the sheets from the marriage bed are routinely displayed to the family the next morning, to verify the bride's chastity before the ceremony.

and people make fun of Steve G.

[fuelair]

Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew.

The word used there is "almah" (please apologize for my using Latin letters instead of Hebrew), which more generally means "young woman." Perhaps the best direct translation into modern English is "maiden," which does double duty as referrring to a "young woman" (OED, sense 1) and "virgin" (OED, sense 2).

The Septuagint (the traditional Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the word "parthenos," which does strictly mean "virgin," to translate "almah." This is also the word used in the original Greek versions of the Gospel of Matthew.



Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden." Is there a Hebrew word specifically meaning virgin? If not....

[drkitten]

Is there a Hebrew word specifically meaning virgin? If not....

... If not, then one can use longer phrases (as in the Judges example above) to make one's meaning perfectly clear. "Young women who had known no man by lying with him" sems pretty specific to me.

Did you know that French has no word specifically meaning "shallow"?

Does this mean that the French have no way of expressing the idea that a pond of water is too shallow to dive safely into? Of course not.

[Blutarsky]

I bet they have one that specifically defines Surrender...:D

[drkitten]

I bet they have one that specifically defines Surrender...:D

Several dozen, I should think. Eskimos and snow, you know....

[The Don]

Several dozen, I should think. Eskimos and snow, you know....
Low blow.....

On that basis US English must have a variety of words for "complacent, ignorant overweaning a--holes" or are stereotypes only funny when applied to someone else ?

[drkitten]

Low blow.....

On that basis US English must have a variety of words for "complacent, ignorant overweaning a--holes" ?

Hundreds, if not thousands. "Damnyankee" -- note the one word spelling -- is one of the more common.

[rwp]

Weren't the gospels written in Greek (and not Hebrew)?


This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. [19] Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

[Darat]

I never quite understood it myself. Their social relationship was like engagement, but was more serious than that, but not quite marriage. Evidently it meant they could be living together, or why would they be travelling together?

Only Luke mentions this journey - the only other gospel that mention the birth is Matthew and that has a very different story - no journey. Our modern "nativity" story is a blending of Luke and Matthew.

[rwp]

[29] Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. [30] But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. [31] You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. [32] He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, [33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

[34] "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"


What do you suppose Mary meant by that question?

[Darat]

What do you suppose Mary meant by that question?

I've always taken it to mean she was concerned about child support payments.

[drkitten]

Weren't the gospels written in Greek (and not Hebrew)?

The Gospels were written in Greek, specifically to fulfil the Hebrew prophesies and most specifically Isaiah. There's no reason to assume that the facts weren't "shaded" to make them more closely meet the prophesies -- and indeed, every reason to believe that they were. Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines to prove that Jesus was of the house of David.

[rwp]

The Gospels were written in Greek, specifically to fulfil the Hebrew prophesies and most specifically Isaiah. There's no reason to assume that the facts weren't "shaded" to make them more closely meet the prophesies -- and indeed, every reason to believe that they were. Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines to prove that Jesus was of the house of David.

What facts? Isn't the new testament our only source of information on Mary? It seems the authors wanted to make a virgin have a child. Can we really take the New Testament and pick and choose what is real and what is not? How do we know what is real? What is the evidence that any of it ever happened?

[Blutarsky]

Unfortunately there is no textual proof to assert that they were fabricated or tweaked.


Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines

Who was the other blood line in addition to Joseph?

[Blutarsky]

What is the evidence that any of it ever happened?

Just about the same evidence that exists of many historical figures and events of that time that we take as fact without skepticism.

[drkitten]

Who was the other blood line in addition to Joseph?

Huh?


Matthew 1
1 ¦ The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[...]
22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.


Luke 3
23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David,


So who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

Who was Joseph's (paternal) grandfather? Matthat, the son of Levi -- or Matthan, the son of Eleazar?

After Joseph, there's basically nothing in common -- in a purportedly straight line paternal descent -- until you get to David, son of Jesse.

And, of course, the closing of the passage from Matthew makes the reason for this clear. In order for Jesus to be the Christ, he had to be the son of David, so the early mythologizers had to come up with some lineage to prove it. Accuracy being secondary....

[drkitten]

Can we really take the New Testament and pick and choose what is real and what is not?

Er, yes. It's called "textual analysis" and historians do it all the time. If we have independent reason to believe that a particular event was made up, we disregard the text telling us about that event.

I don't know of any historian that believes in the Quest for the Holy Grail, Geoffrey of Monmouth not withstanding.

[rwp]

I think I understand the basic idea: You are saying that the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted show how Mary was the woman who Isaiah (and other characters in the Old Testament books) was talking about.

In addition, you say that the authors of Matthew and Luke may have been incorrect in assuming that Isaiah/OT was referencing a virgin, rather that Isaiah/OT just meant a young woman.

Is that right?

[drkitten]

I think I understand the basic idea: You are saying that the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted show how Mary was the woman who Isaiah (and other characters in the Old Testament books) was talking about.

In addition, you say that the authors of Matthew and Luke may have been incorrect in assuming that Isaiah/OT was referencing a virgin, rather that Isaiah/OT just meant a young woman.

Is that right?

More or less spot on.

[Steven Howard]

Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew.

The word used there is "almah" (please apologize for my using Latin letters instead of Hebrew), which more generally means "young woman." Perhaps the best direct translation into modern English is "maiden," which does double duty as referrring to a "young woman" (OED, sense 1) and "virgin" (OED, sense 2).

The Septuagint (the traditional Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the word "parthenos," which does strictly mean "virgin," to translate "almah." This is also the word used in the original Greek versions of the Gospel of Matthew.

Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden."

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all. By my reading, he's talking about the boy who's born in Isaiah 8. In Chapter 7, the kingdom of Judah is being attacked by two kings: King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Ephraim. Isaiah goes to Ahaz, the king of Judah, and says, "This kid will be born and before he's old enough to know right from wrong, Rezin and Pekah will will be defeated by the Assyrians."

Then in Chapter 8, Isaiah fathers a child with the "prophetess" and God tells him, "before your son is old enough to say 'mommy' or 'daddy', the Assyrians will show up and kick Rezin and Pekah in the butt." Ahaz's reign, along with the war with Rezin and Pekah and their subsequent defeat at the hands of Assyria, is also recounted in 2 Kings Chapter 16.

[drkitten]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all.

Yeah, well, traditional exegesis is a wonderful thing.

By the time of Christ, the accepted reading of that passage of Isaiah was the prediction of the Messiah. If you want to throw that out, you're welcome to -- but then you've got little or no reason to believe that a Messiah will appear at all....

[rwp]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all. By my reading, he's talking about the boy who's born in Isaiah 8. In Chapter 7, the kingdom of Judah is being attacked by two kings: King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Ephraim. Isaiah goes to Ahaz, the king of Judah, and says, "This kid will be born and before he's old enough to know right from wrong, Rezin and Pekah will will be defeated by the Assyrians."

Then in Chapter 8, Isaiah fathers a child with the "prophetess" and God tells him, "before your son is old enough to say 'mommy' or 'daddy', the Assyrians will show up and kick Rezin and Pekah in the butt." Ahaz's reign, along with the war with Rezin and Pekah and their subsequent defeat at the hands of Assyria, is also recounted in 2 Kings Chapter 16.

The authors of the New Testament attempt to make various Old Testament writings refer to their characters. It doesn't mean that it is a factual relation - I just mean to say that is what they did.


[22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23] "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."

[Marc L]

This will probably illustrate my real lack of biblical historical knowledge, but it is something that I've been trying to think through.

Ok, if we are to believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, why should that be a legitimate starting point to the whole story.

There are two aspects:

1) Mary was engaged to Joseph - but was it common practice back then (as it is now with many conservative types, but many many less than say 20 or 30 years ago) not to have sex before marriage? Did this type of behavior evolve from the old testament times?

2) If sex before marriage was not acceptable or normal, was it ok to be 'living together'? I assume that at least near the time she was to give birth, this would have been the case as they travelled together.

As I say, my historical knowledge of the social rules of the time is probably a bit lacking.

As I understand it, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to have sex back then. Unfortunately, I don't have any official sources, so don't quote me.

As for the argument about whether or not the NT writers intended her to be a virgin, I'd have to say, based on context, that they did. Mary herself asks how she could be the mother of the Messiah, since she hadn't known man (which was a dumb question, in my opinion), and later on, when Joseph wants to break off the engagement (expecting that she'd slept with someone else-incidentally, implying that the two hadn't slept together), the angel tells him that the pregnancy is God's work.

Marc

Marc

[Blutarsky]

So who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

After Joseph, there's basically nothing in common -- in a purportedly straight line paternal descent -- until you get to David, son of Jesse.

These canards have been discussed and the apparent contradictions have been harmonized by textual scholars going back as far as Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum.

[rwp]

So , why is Mary a virgin? The answer is most likely because the authors wanted her to be. Why did the authors want her to be a virgin?

This virgin-birth is common in other myths as well. It seems to give deity status to the baby.

[Steven Howard]

Yeah, well, traditional exegesis is a wonderful thing.

By the time of Christ, the accepted reading of that passage of Isaiah was the prediction of the Messiah. If you want to throw that out, you're welcome to -- but then you've got little or no reason to believe that a Messiah will appear at all....

I know the gospel writers decided that one sentence from Isaiah was about Mary and Jesus. I just don't understand how they decided that, or how anybody can read it in context and support that interpretation.

[drkitten]

These canards have been discussed and the apparent contradictions have been harmonized by textual scholars going back as far as Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum.

Yes, and they're still unbelievable.

[Z]

It's a good question, Steven.

I think the answer lies more in the style of repetitive epic themes so common to the Greek writers of the times. The older story might have been modeled on an even older myth, but the writers wanted to somehow fit it into newer myths that they needed to create. So somehow, every kid with a special birth, where an opposing nation was toppled, was a 'practice run' for the coming of Jesus.

Just one armchair scholar's opinion, mind you...

[rwp]

The Wikipedia article on Virgin Birth would be a benefit to this thread. There is too much to quote, so I will just reference the article here.

[Blutarsky]

Yes, and they're still unbelievable.
Thanks for the personal opinion, but unless you've got some scholarly work to bolster that opinion...

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

[Z]

Thanks for the personal opinion, but unless you've got some scholarly work to bolster that opinion...

He really doesn't need it. As of yet, the attempts at apologetics have fallen far short of the mark, regarding the lineage of Christ. The burden of proof still lies firmly in the apologists' courts.

[Blutarsky]

Again, more personal opinion. What type of evidence are you looking for? Are you wanting birth certificates certified by a Notary Public?

The skeptic is asserting that the lineages don' add up, and I'm asking for scholarly work backing that up.

I doubt that even conclusive proof, if it was offered by an apoloigist would suffice, seeing as the skeptic is "skeptical" of the apologist, as I am skeptical of the skeptics opinion of the apologist...

[drkitten]

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

Doesn't matter. Which one was Joseph's father?

Either Luke was in error, or Matthew was.

[Blutarsky]

Both sides trace back to David. Does it matter which of the two sons of David the ultimate person came from? The ultimate fact that Christ was a decendent of David is the quintessence of the prohpecy, not the exact path.

[Steven Howard]

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons.

They were both whose sons? David's? Are you using "son" metaphorically to mean "descendent?"

Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob. Luke says Joseph's father was Heli. Unless you can show that Jacob and Heli are two different names for the same person, that's a contradiction.

[Blutarsky]

That's an irrelevant contradiction, as both have their locus in David. Anyone interested in how the two ideas can be harmonized has to look no further than levirate marriage.

[drkitten]

That's an irrelevant contradiction, as both have their locus in David. Anyone interested in how the two ideas can be harmonized has to look no further than levirate marriage.

I understand levirate marriage.

I see no reason to find "levirate marriage" to be more plausible than "Luke made stuff up."

In fact, the existence of several dozen other equally implausible theories to explain the apparent discrepancy -- which means that the scholars themselves do not accept the levirate marriage theory -- is all the scholarly opinion I need to discount levirate marriage as a plausible explanation.

[Steven Howard]

That's an irrelevant contradiction, as both have their locus in David. Anyone interested in how the two ideas can be harmonized has to look no further than levirate marriage.

How does the practice of a widow marrying her husband's brother give a man two different fathers?

[drkitten]

How does the practice of a widow marrying her husband's brother give a man two different fathers?

The new husband would become the legal father of any children. The modern word for such a relationship is a "stepfather."

Under this interpretation, Heli as Joseph's father, Jacob his stepfather (or vice versa). Of course, the problem here is that for Heli and Jacob to be siblings, they would need to have the same father (which they don't, by the geneology).

So the only way that the "levirate marriage" theory works is for this rather improbable situation to have happened for thirty-odd generations running, until Solomon died and Nathan married one of his widows....

[triadboy]

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all.

You are correct, Sir! Matthew's agenda was to preach to Jewish converts. But he apprently wasn't very good at Hebrew. Along with classifying a young woman as a virgin - Matthew also got confused with Hebrew Double-Speak.

Look at the following passage:

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This is Hebrew Double-Speak for - a donkey. Look at how confused Matthew became:


Matthew 21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled" [Zechariah 9:9]
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Rootin' Tootin' Messiah riding full gallop with one foot on a colt and one foot on an ass! Now THAT'S a savior!

[Steven Howard]

Rootin' Tootin' Messiah riding full gallop with one foot on a colt and one foot on an ass! Now THAT'S a savior!

That's one of my favorites. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1890816&postcount=111

[Euromutt]

Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians still follow those rules (the real Fundies do, anyway). Illustration:

Some time ago, a cow-orker was processing a Muslim woman whose husband, already here as a Permanent Resident, was petitioning to have her made a Permanent Resident, as well. The documentation for the marriage was a little lacking, which was no reflection on the couple, so my cow-orker sent out a boilerplate request to the husband for further corroboration. The documents came in, all right, but they were accompanied by a cover letter literally damning my cow-orker to hell for suggesting that the wife was less than pure. There was enough in there that the entire package was sent to ICE for a ruling on whether it constituted a threat to a Federal officer.This may hold true for muslims, but whether it holds true for hardline Christians is a different matter all together. Among hardline Calvinists, from the 17th century to the present day, a couple didn't get married unless and until the girl was demonstrably pregnant. Similarly, in rural (Lutheran) Norway, it was common practice that a girl of marriable age spent her nights in the "maidens' room" (rough translation), which was not directly accessible from the rest of the house, only from the outside, where she would be visited by the young bucks of the village, and whichever one of them (she thought) knocked her up was expected to marry her. The reason for this sort of practice is that you don't want to run the risk of marrying a girl, only to find she's infertile after the wedding. At least, not in a monogamous culture. This is less of an objection for muslims, as not only do they get to have up to four wives, but the procedure for divorce is established in scripture. Jews, at least at the time of the Old Testament, also have the polygamy option; witness Gen 29 in which Jacob marries Rachel in addition to Leah.

[Steven Howard]

The new husband would become the legal father of any children. The modern word for such a relationship is a "stepfather."

Under this interpretation, Heli as Joseph's father, Jacob his stepfather (or vice versa). Of course, the problem here is that for Heli and Jacob to be siblings, they would need to have the same father (which they don't, by the geneology).

So the only way that the "levirate marriage" theory works is for this rather improbable situation to have happened for thirty-odd generations running, until Solomon died and Nathan married one of his widows....

Matthew uses "begat", so his list would have to be the biological fathers. Luke uses "the son of", so his list would have to be the stepfathers. Even if we bend over backwards and admit the possibility that a.) Joseph was the product of an uninterrupted thousand-year string of such occurences; and that b.) Luke, in compiling his genealogy identified every single man as the "son of" his mother's second husband, there are still a couple of problems for blutarsky's assertion that the two lists are consistent.

To demonstrate these we need to do the "scholarly work" of a.) counting; and b.) reading the rest of the Bible.

By counting, we can see that Matthew says there were 25 generations from David to Joseph, while Luke says there were 40. Further, we see that while the two lists both trace the same line from Abraham to David, in between David and Joseph they have only two names in common: Shealtiel and his son Zerubabbel. The problem here is that by Matthew's count, there are 10 generations between Zerubabbel and Joseph, while Luke puts 19 generations between them. One could argue that the author of Matthew is leaving out generations in the sake of brevity, but then he goes on that weird numerology kick about 14 generations from this to that, and another 14 from that to the other.

By reading the rest of the Bible, we can see that Matthew's list follows the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles Chapter 3, except that the gospel author skips over four kings of Judah (Ahaziah, Athalian, Jehoash, and Amaziah should be in between Jeroham and Uzziah). We also see more trouble from Shealtiel and Zerubabbel. Chronicles says Z is S's nephew, while Matthew says S "begat" Z. Luke can possibly get around this, by the argument that "son of" need not mean "direct biological son of", but then Luke's getting from Nathan to Shealtiel through a list of names that don't seem to correspond with any Old Testament source.

We also see that none of the names on either list after Zerubabbel and before Joseph seem to appear anywhere else in the Bible. Chronicles doesn't list either Rhesea (per Luke) or Abiud (per Matthew) as one of Z's many children. It lists two sons: Meshullam and Hananiah, and proceeds to trace the descent through Hananiah.

[Z]

What Blut seems to be saying, is it's not the lineage that matters, but the essence of the lineage.

The problem there, of course, is if the essence were all that matters, they would have simply stated Joseph, descendent of David. Clearly, by laying out a genealogical path, the author was attempting to validate that lineage; and clearly, one of the two - or both - got it wrong.

Any other lineage discrepencies would have shed doubt upon the authenticity of the subject's heritage, and likely would result in any claims of authority based on heritage being discounted. Only Joseph's lineage seems immune to such scrutiny. Why? The subject HAD to be descended from noble blood, or the prophecy simply wouldn't work.

If I present you with two documents, one by John and one by George, and they listed the following heritage:

JOHN:
Wilber son of Sam son of Luther son of Martin son of Bob, King of the Hill People
GEORGE:
Wilber son of Ricky son of Tom son of Martin son of Jason son of Randy son of Bob, King of the Hill People

...A skeptic's response, simply, would be to point out that the lineages don't match. The burden of proof is then on me to go back and figure out why they don't match, and present evidence to explain, for example, how Ricky was also known as Sam, or how John missed a step in the lineage, etc. If, instead, I wave it away, saying such things as, "Oh, Ricky was Wilbur's stepfather, and was also descended from Bob..." or "It's the essence that Wilbur is Bob's descendant", or worse, "Ricky is Wilbur's wife's dad", then I haven't supported my burden.

This is the state of the situation with the lineage of Joseph. The burden of proof still lay in the apologists' hands, and so far they've done nothing to support this claim or rectify this error.

[drkitten]

To demonstrate these we need to do the "scholarly work" of a.) counting; and b.) reading the rest of the Bible.

So, Blutarsky, "levirate marriage" demonstrably doesn't work as an explanation of that inconsistency.

Unless, of course, there's something that we've missed out on.

But in that case, can you either correct our understanding of levirate marriage, or suggest another, more plausible, explanation other that "they made it up"?

[StewartP]

The authors of the New Testament attempt to make various Old Testament writings refer to their characters. It doesn't mean that it is a factual relation - I just mean to say that is what they did.

Originally Posted by Matthew 1, NIV
[22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23] "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."

Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.

But any believer will tell you that because Christians call him Immanuel (in lots of their songs of worship) the prophecy is true either way. If the prophesy was "and they will call him Billy the Fish" —which means, "He shoots, He scores" It would only take some church to include that in a chorus and Bang! prophesy fulfilled.

[Steven Howard]

Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.

Reminds me of a joke (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2010453&postcount=180) my Dad told me once.

[stamenflicker]

The Gospels were written in Greek, specifically to fulfil the Hebrew prophesies and most specifically Isaiah. There's no reason to assume that the facts weren't "shaded" to make them more closely meet the prophesies -- and indeed, every reason to believe that they were. Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines to prove that Jesus was of the house of David.

I think you can definately make the case that the infancy narratives were written with this specifically in mind. For RWP and others defending these narratives, it's important to note that they are written in an entirely different voice, and are probably the product of a different author.

Outside of the infancy narratives, you would be able to point to a handful of instances in which it appears that certain aspects were written with this in mind, for example the refusal to break the bones of Jesus on the cross. These instances are usually followed by the phrase, "that the scripture might be fulfilled."

Of note however is that the primary target group for these gospels was a Jewish audience, hence it would make sense to refer back to some of their expectations regarding the Messiah, in spite of the fact that from the narratives themselves, it would appear Jesus could care less if met their "expectations."

So we are left with a story whose main character is content to "not fulfill" these expectations, and a handful of phrases coined by authors who seemed to deem it important that He did anyway.

[qayak]

. . . when Joseph wants to break off the engagement (expecting that she'd slept with someone else-incidentally, implying that the two hadn't slept together), the angel tells him that the pregnancy is God's work.

I think I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If Joseph had never been with Mary it would have been easy for him to tell if she had been with another man. He would not have wanted to break the engagement because he could have gotten out even after the marriage if she was not a virgin.

However, if he HAD been with her, there was no way for him to know if she had been with another man. He would have wanted to break the engagement because he knew there was no way to ever tell.

[triadboy]

I think I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If Joseph had never been with Mary it would have been easy for him to tell if she had been with another man. He would not have wanted to break the engagement because he could have gotten out even after the marriage if she was not a virgin.

However, if he HAD been with her, there was no way for him to know if she had been with another man. He would have wanted to break the engagement because he knew there was no way to ever tell.

I don't understand why you are getting wrapped around the axle about something that didn't happen. The whole nativity scene was inserted into Matthew - 80-90 years after the supposed blessed event! It's made up.

[Piscivore]

Mary was a virgin because Target wouldn't sell her contraceptives.

[CapelDodger]

Reminds me of a joke (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2010453&postcount=180) my Dad told me once.
The thread title reminds me of a Groucho Marx line - "I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin" - but I'm probably as old as your Dad.

[CapelDodger]

I don't understand why you are getting wrapped around the axle about something that didn't happen. The whole nativity scene was inserted into Matthew - 80-90 years after the supposed blessed event! It's made up.
True. It was made up to explain to children the Isis dioramas that were common in the Roman world of the time. The mother is Isis, the baby is her husband Osiris - bear with me :) . Osiris was killed by his evil brother Set and cut into parts that were hidden across the world/Egypt to conceal the crime. Isis, creator of the animals (Osiris did humans and the Nile, as I recall, that's males for you, always muscling in on the important stuff) could speak all their languages, and they told her where the pieces were. "In a tree" said the birds, "In the river" said the fish, "Down a hole" said the snakes, and so on. Isis gathered the pieces together secretly (so that Set wouldn't notice) and hid them in the cow-byre - "In the dung-heap" said the cows - until they were all together again. (There was some dispute as to whether she found his penis, one version has the smith-god making one of bronze.) Once they were all together - it took three days - Osiris was reborn as a child and rapidly developed into adulthood, smote Set smotily and all was right again. Isis's festival day was the 25th of December. The nativity dioramas of today are direct descendants of the Isis shrines that followers - there were many - set out around the winter solstice.

[CapelDodger]

Mary was a virgin because Target wouldn't sell her contraceptives.
Better safe than sorry.

[CapelDodger]

Of note however is that the primary target group for these gospels was a Jewish audience, hence it would make sense to refer back to some of their expectations regarding the Messiah, in spite of the fact that from the narratives themselves, it would appear Jesus could care less if met their "expectations."
I think John was aimed at a Jewish audience, Mark perhaps at an ex-Jewish (post-Jewish?) audience, but Matthew and Luke were aimed at a non-Jewish audience. Mark tries to distance Christianity from the rebellious Jews of his day, John doesn't really give a fart about the material world, Matthew and Luke are aiming at a synthesis of traditions. That's just how it seems to me.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Matthew 1, NIV


Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.
"Immanuel" makes for a crap chant. No way to get a mob energised. "Je-Sus, Je-Sus, Je-Sus ...", that's what I call a chant. Immanuel can't compete with that.

[qayak]

Bill Clinton and the Pope are killed in the same plane crash. Shortly after, the Pope finds himself in Hell. He goes over to Satan and says, "I think there has been a mistake. I should be in heaven with my Lord."

The Devil checks his list and says, "You are correct. A mistake has been made. Relax while i go talk to God and see if we can sort this out."

A little while later Satan returns and says, "Your Holiness, there was a mistake. Someone got the names wrong and you were sent here while Bill Clinton went to heaven. Unfortunately, it is late in the day and everyone has knocked off so we won't be able to fix the mistake until the morning. In the meantime, we have fixed up a room for you and your night will be just as it would in heaven. Have a good evening."

The next morning Satan leads the Pope over to a set of golden stairs that has appeared from Heaven. He tells the Pope that he is to climb to Heaven. The Pope starts up the stairs.

About half way up he sees a figure coming down and as they draw closer he sees it is Bill Clinton heading to Hell. Bill stops and says to the Pope, "Your Holiness, I am terribly sorry for the mistake and that you had to spend a night in Hell. I will gladly trade places with a deserving person like you."

The Pope says, "That's okay my son. I would gladly change places with you because I know that you have tried to be good but I have spent my whole life dreaming of getting into Heaven and talking to the people I have grown to admire. People like Jesus, The Virgin Mary, St. Peter, . . . ."

At this point Bill Clinton interupts the Pope and says, "Ummmmmm. . . about that virgin thing. Sorry!"

[Beerina]

Actually, I submit that your quotation actually strengthens my point.

If the word "almah" actually meant "virgin," then it would have been unnecessary to add "who had known no man by lying with him" in that passage.

We wouldn't write in modern English that so-and-so is a virgin who hasn't had sex. That's redundant. But we might write that so-and-so is a young woman who hasn't had sex.

Yes, but not necessarily "in the olden days". So powerful were the social stigma of premarital sex -- especially for a woman, that calling someone a "maiden", technically without reference to her virginal status, may just simply be presumed that she still was. This is because unmarried females who were not were a big goddamned deal, and were harlots or whores or soiled or god knows what other colorful speech was used.

And I think a writer might very well double-imply virginity. "She was a virgin, who had never had sex" may be redundant, but also drives the point home. Which is the point of such a passage.

And the whole point of her being a virgin was that, presumably, people born of vaginas that had multiple weiners in them were less pure than one in which only one man's seed had traveled.

And if you're to be born a god, you're not gonna be born of anything remotely polluted. And now, the sound bite: God does not play sloppy seconds to any man.

[Marc L]

I think I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If Joseph had never been with Mary it would have been easy for him to tell if she had been with another man. He would not have wanted to break the engagement because he could have gotten out even after the marriage if she was not a virgin.

However, if he HAD been with her, there was no way for him to know if she had been with another man. He would have wanted to break the engagement because he knew there was no way to ever tell.

And that would make sense, if your Average Joe (pun intended) were in fact that nitpicky. Most men that I know, if they hear their girl is pregnant are only going to get mad it there's a chance it was someone else. As far as Joseph knew, there was only one way for someone to get pregnant, and that was by sex. If he'd been sleeping with her, his first reaction likely would have been "oops," not ,"Slut, let's break the engagement."


Originally Posted by triadboy
I don't understand why you are getting wrapped around the axle about something that didn't happen. The whole nativity scene was inserted into Matthew - 80-90 years after the supposed blessed event! It's made up.

For the same reason why you have books like "The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Trek," and forums upon forums upon forums of people arguing about whether or not Kirk ever really violated the Prime Directive.

Marc

[The Don]

"and they will call him Billy the Fish" —which means, "He shoots, He scores".
Actually, Billy the Fish was a goalkeeper which makes the difference between him and Jesus even more pronounced.


After all, we at least have evidence that Billy the Fish saves...

[drkitten]

Yes, but not necessarily "in the olden days". So powerful were the social stigma of premarital sex -- especially for a woman, that calling someone a "maiden", technically without reference to her virginal status, may just simply be presumed that she still was.

Er, that's my point.


And I think a writer might very well double-imply virginity. "She was a virgin, who had never had sex" may be redundant, but also drives the point home. Which is the point of such a passage.

Why would that point need special emphasis in that passage, though?

[Marc L]

After all, we at least have evidence that Billy the Fish saves...

Which reminds me of the line from "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?":

George Nelson is robbing a bank and quips on his way out, "Remember folks, Jesus saves, but George Nelson withdraws!"

Marc

[scotth]

Mary was a virgin because being born of a virgin was an extremely common theme among that type of hero cult at the time.

[scotth]

Both sides trace back to David. Does it matter which of the two sons of David the ultimate person came from? The ultimate fact that Christ was a decendent of David is the quintessence of the prohpecy, not the exact path.

How does tracing the ancestry to the non-father help at all?

[drkitten]

How does tracing the ancestry to the non-father help at all?

Notice that Blutarsky has evidently decided to cash in his chips and go home.

Apparently he recognizes a losing hand when he sees one.

[Marc L]

How does tracing the ancestry to the non-father help at all?

One could argue that Jesus was Joseph's adopted son, and designated as his legal heir (refuting the idea that James et. al. are children from his first marriage), but the text doesn't make any mention of it.

The usual retort is that one of the two lineages is Mary's, which doesn't make sense, since she is from the tribe of Levi, not Judah.

Marc

[writerdd]

In case no-one has said this yet, Mary was a viring because of a mistranslation of an Old Testament prophecy. The prophecy said the messiah would be born of a young woman. This was mistranslated as virgin. The virgin mythology was prevalent in the time that the New Testament was written. Presto! A new Christian myth.

[rwp]

I think you can definately make the case that the infancy narratives were written with this specifically in mind. For RWP and others defending these narratives, it's important to note that they are written in an entirely different voice, and are probably the product of a different author.


I have no idea who wrote what or when they wrote it, so it is not my intention to defend the narratives.

[ceo_esq]

Mary was a virgin because being born of a virgin was an extremely common theme among that type of hero cult at the time.

We've examined that claim on this forum in the past. When actually investigated, the supposed analogues to the Jesus birth story are less than compelling, and the characteristics of the Jesus birth myth begin to appear more distinctive.

[triadboy]

We've examined that claim on this forum in the past. When actually investigated, the supposed analogues to the Jesus birth story are less than compelling, and the characteristics of the Jesus birth myth begin to appear more distinctive.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin.


Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.

The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." 4

In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternative myth is that he emerged from a rock.

Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.

In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth.

Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

[ceo_esq]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

Yes, I recognize most of these as the same candidates we've reviewed in the past.

What typically happens is something along the following lines.

Maya was married for a while before she gave birth to Buddha, so it's unlikely that she was a virgin. At any rate, I've never seen a pre-Christian source that suggested she was.

There's no reason to think Isis (who was not even a human being) was a virgin either. For one thing, she was also married well before Horus was born. For another, if I recall correctly, it was necessary for her to bodily raise Osiris from the dead for the purpose of conceiving Horus, so I think we can assume that Horus was conceived in something approximating the conventional manner.

That's just the first two on your list. We could go on like this, but it just gets boring after a while, as we've seen in several other threads devoted to the same topic.

[This Guy]

Maybe it's because she... um... had a great personality.

My thoughts were that perhaps she really didn't look as appealing as all those statues and pictures we see of her today.

I mean lets face it, with state of the art makeup and hygienic standards of the time, is it more likely that she looked like her modern day representations, or more like the wicked witch in the wizard of Oz?

I would suspect the latter.

[Beerina]

Why would that point need special emphasis in that passage, though?

Because of the massive hangups on sexuality, the virginity is a key point of the story. In any event, I wouldn't conclude that the lack of use of a virgin-specific word was indicative of some earlier or modified story where she wasn't a virgin.

[merentha]

The Isaiah passage is somewhat redundant anyways. Why mention that the child will be born of a young maiden? You mean as opposed to an old lady or a man?

I think the virginity was implied in the prophecy. Doesn't necessarily mean that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, if they both even existed.

[This Guy]

The Isaiah passage is somewhat redundant anyways. Why mention that the child will be born of a young maiden? You mean as opposed to an old lady or a man?

I think the virginity was implied in the prophecy. Doesn't necessarily mean that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, if they both even existed.

Not putting words in your mouth, but to say it was implied in the prophecy implies there was a prophecy.

From my reading of Isaiah it's talking about an event that was more relevant to the time it was written than it was to some future time.

Did the Jews of that time see it as a prophesy? Did it apply to events that were current or near the time of it's writing?

It's easy to go back, and find prophesy in old literature, just refer to the Nostradamus hype. I think in many (most?) cases, OT prophesy cited by Christians can easier be explained as current events around the time of their writing.

[qayak]

. . . ,"Slut, let's break the engagement."

You say that like there is something wrong with sluts! :D

Do you know the difference between a b*tch and a slut?

A slut will have sex with anyone. A b*tch will have sex with anyone BUT YOU!

[triadboy]

The Isaiah passage is somewhat redundant anyways. Why mention that the child will be born of a young maiden? You mean as opposed to an old lady or a man?

I think Isaiah was giving the King a timeline. "This is going to happen before this young woman has a child."

[Darth Rotor]

Just about the same evidence that exists of many historical figures and events of that time that we take as fact without skepticism.
IIRC, the Peloponesian War, Thucydides, is one such single source document, though there may be references to it in some old ancient Persian texts that I am unaware of.

DR

[Ausmerican]

This is all very well but no-one has touched on the important matter. Does anyone know the name of the GENIUS guy that was getting about the area at the time, boffing virgins and lying to their betrothed and the virgins themselves that he was an angel?

[SezMe]

Arnold Schwaren.... its late.

[fuelair]

So she could wear the circle pin!

[Ossai]

The Don
On that basis US English must have a variety of words for "complacent, ignorant overweaning a--holes" or are stereotypes only funny when applied to someone else ? Several dozen in fact: NFL fan, NBA fan, NHL fan, <any sports> fan in general is interchangeable.

Blutarsky
These canards have been discussed and the apparent contradictions have been harmonized by textual scholars going back as far as Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum. Really? Then you wouldn’t mind providing the evidence of such.

Either side Heli or Jacob traces directly back to David, as they were both his sons. Yet both sides could not be the father of David. You are left with the conundrum of either or both genealogical lines being wrong.

The skeptic is asserting that the lineages don' add up, and I'm asking for scholarly work backing that up.
This is from Dadvocate from another forum.
Let us have a look at a latter portion of Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogical lists:

Matthew:

Jeconiah
Salathiel
Zerrubbabel
Adiud

Luke:
Addi
Melchi
Shealtiel (same as Salathiel)
Zerrubbabel
Rhesa

As others have already said, the overlap is pretty silly if the lists are compiled from two separate sources. VwV should have to answer these very damaging points if he is to salvage anything on this issue, let alone pull himself out of the Bibliolator, Inerrantist, inconsistent debater hole that he rumages through. Of course he won’t be able to do this, for many others have tried to come up with something feasible for these tattered genealogies. Each has failed and was left with nothing other than the well known Believer’s assertion, the negative “You prove it ain’t so!”, or the last ditch “It could have been so, therefore the Bible is inerrant.” For all of VwV’s efforts, he still has other glowing errors to deal with that are focused on one particular family line in this mother-load of inconsistency. As StormBringer said earlier on:

“Jesus was physically descended from David - Romans 1:1- 3.
The genealogies in Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 both attempt to link Jesus with Joseph to give Jesus a place in the Davidic line (which was necessary for messiahship).”

Yes, absolutely. This simply stated, clear reason uses the thinking of the people of the time. It explains perfectly why the name Joseph would be added to both lists, even if those lists are imperfect. The Davidic line established, the other issues went wholly unnoticed. It isn't any more complicated than that.

We also know from careful reading that Jeconiah is an altered from of Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, one of the famous Biblical Kings of Judah. The first "potential" problem comes from the fact that 1 Chronicles 3:16-19 establishes a very important lineage of Jehoachin’s sons: including Shealtiel and Pedaiah. Here is the citation as per YLT:


16 And sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

17 And sons of Jeconiah: Assir; Salathiel his son;

18 also Malchiram and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.

19 And sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel, and Shimei. And sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister,

Zerubbabel is mentioned clearly as the son Pedaiah as can be confirmed also in Ezra 3:2 (just to name one example). What is amazing here is that the lineage of Pedaiah is conveniently left out of BOTH Matthew and Luke’s account, and that Shealtiel (the brother) takes on the lineage in both as well. One can certainly invoke the Levriate tradition to explain Pedaiah as missing, but one can’t simply brush away the fact that the SAME familial lineage occurs in both Matthew’s and Luke’s lists.

This won’t convince VwV, of course. Any chance to assert will be taken and anointed the status of fact. This is more for the honest observer to take in for herself. Think of the variables in order to reconcile this very large problem.

1) You have to invoke a Levriate marriage.
2) You have to assume the lists are from difference lines.
3) In order to hold number 2, you also have to assume that the Salathiel (Shealtiel) to Zerubbabel relationship in both lists at the exact same location in each line is mere coincidence.

As VwV will most certainly rely on any out--one “can” argue all of the above--but how can one reasonably put any kind of belief behind such a stretch? Is this the foundation of faith? Is this the rock upon which to live one's life?

For the objective viewer, the issue of credibility should play the most important role. Is it more likely that these retrofitted answers to antiquated problems are the truth, or is it more likely that these are simply errors occurring in an errant doctrine that can be explained through writers noting lineage as Dr X says, “not thinking that their works would end up in the same canon”?

I’ll let you decide.

Before you do, I’d like to whet your skeptic appetite a bit more with something VwV won’t easily be able to dance around.

We also have the added problem of The Jehoakim clan being rather distasteful in that God doesn’t want them there. You see, they are not allowed to be there as per Yahweh’s orders! God had condemned this line from ever taking part in the lineage of David. Here is my support:

Just so I’m not accused of using something as "unscholarly" as Young’s Literary Translation, I’ll refer to the “correct” version in the NKJ Bible.

Jeremiah 22:

28"Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol--
A vessel in which is no pleasure?
Why are they cast out, he and his descendants,
And cast into a land which they do not know?

29 O earth, earth, earth,
Hear the word of the LORD!

30 Thus says the LORD:
"Write this man down as childless,
A man who shall not prosper in his days;
For none of his descendants shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David,
And ruling anymore in Judah."'


The line is broken here in as clear a fashion as anyone could ever want. Wait, there is more:

Jeremiah 36:

27 Now after the king had burned the scroll with the words which Baruch had written at the instruction of Jeremiah, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying:

28 "Take yet another scroll, and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned.

29 And you shall say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, "Thus says the LORD: "You have burned this scroll, saying, "Why have you written in it that the king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and cause man and beast to cease from here?"'

30 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: "He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night.

31 I will punish him, his family, and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring on them, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and on the men of Judah all the doom that I have pronounced against them; but they did not heed.""'

32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the instruction of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And besides, there were added to them many similar words.

(all scriptural bolds are mine of course)

As can clearly be seen in the scripture, Jehoiakim pissed off God and was subsequently cast out of the lineage, thus his removal from the genealogies that are connected to David. Again, StormBringer correctly notes that the importance of the “Davidic” line is what prompted the inclusion of Joseph. So, having both of these names in the line pretty much counters the word of God in the OT.

Couple this with the other glaring errors, and you have a genealogy on par with an unsinkable Titanic. Pick your iceberg, VwV. They are hitting your account as if shot out of a Gatling gun.

Ossai

[Ossai]

StewartP
Actually this is one of my favorites, because I can't remember him being called Immanuel. They called him Jesus.

But any believer will tell you that because Christians call him Immanuel (in lots of their songs of worship) the prophecy is true either way. If the prophesy was "and they will call him Billy the Fish" —which means, "He shoots, He scores" It would only take some church to include that in a chorus and Bang! prophesy fulfilled.
No worries, all of Isaiah and all supposed prophecies made by Isaiah are null and void.

Definition of a false prophet from
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And then Isaiah proved a false prophet:
[b]Isaiah 17:1-2
An oracle concerning Damascus. See, Damascus [i]will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever...

Seems no one informed the current residents.

Ossai

[Ossai]

Hey Blutarsky, I noticed you’re still active. You requested direct indication of where Jesus’s lineages were incorrect and I provided. And lineages is correct since he is listed as having a father that’s own lineage traces back to David, yet he wasn’t the son of Joseph.