Was Jesus a Virgin?

[outhouse]

Was Jesus a virgin?

What puzzles me is this:

Suppose he was a virgin. If so, then wasn't his understanding of humanity limited?

Suppose he was not a virgin. If so, then wasn't his virginity lost out of wedlock?

I'm not sure how this can be resolved....

we dont have a clue about jesus real life to even guess this, if there was a part in any scripture anywhere that suggested half of that it would have been edited out and original books destroyed.

And jesus has no historicity before 30 years of age

 

[Awoon]

Where in the Bible is monogenes used to describe Isaac?

I agree with the second statement of course. Do you believe that Jesus is the "only son of God"? Or in your view is each unique person a "son of God" in the same sense as is/was Jesus?

From the book "Let There be Light The Seven Keys" pp187,188, by Rocco Errico

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John 1-22, A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary, "Notes" and "only Son'" pp13-14.

"Literaly the Greek means "of a single [monos] kind [genos]." Although genos is distincly related to gennan, "to beget." there is little in Greek justification for the translation of monogenes as "onle begotten." The Old Latin version correctly translated it as unicus, "only" and so did Jerome where it is not applied to Jesus. But to answer the Arian claim that Jesus waas begotten and not made, Jerome translated it as unigenitus, "only begotten," in passages like this one (also Jn.1:18, 3:16 and 18. The influence of the Vulgate on the King James made "only begotten" the standard English rendition.

(Actually, as we have insisted , John does not use the term "begotten" of Jesus).

Monosgenes describes a quality of Jesus, his uniqueness, not what is called in Trinitarian theology his "procession." It reflects Hebrew yahid, "only, "prescious," which is used in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, of Abraham's son Issac, as monogenes is used of Issac in Hebrews 11:17. Issac was Abraham's uniquely prescious son, but not his only begotten."

Disclaimer...I have permission from Rocco Errico to post statements from his writings. However if I have violated any rules in this forum by doing that, I apologize since I'm not fully familar with all the rules.

I'm sure the Mods will infom me and I appreciate them pointing out my mistakes.

 

[doppelganger]

Monosgenes describes a quality of Jesus, his uniqueness, not what is called in Trinitarian theology his "procession." It reflects Hebrew yahid, "only, "prescious," which is used in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, of Abraham's son Issac, as monogenes is used of Issac in Hebrews 11:17. Issac was Abraham's uniquely prescious son, but not his only begotten."

As I look at the various uses of the word by different authors, I'm leaning toward agreeing with this.

What about your answer to my question I asked you?

 

[Awoon]

Would you repeat it?

 

[doppelganger]

Would you repeat it?

Sure.

In your view is each unique person a "son of God" in the same sense as is/was Jesus?

 

[Awoon]

Yes Sir

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps not, but "only begotten son" seems like an even further stretch.

NIV renders John 1:14 as "one and only son" and ESV has "only Son of the Father". Young's and KJ have "only begotten Son" though.

Interestingly, "son" is read into this word in translations of John, but in Luke 7, we find monogenes huios (usually translated as "only son"), which means Luke did not consider 'son'ship to be implied in monogenes because he adds huios to it.

Quite an interesting little puzzle.

I just looked at John 3:16, and huios is there.

υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ

 

[doppelganger]

I just looked at John 3:16, and huios is there.

I just noticed that, too. It seems that the term is almost always used as "only" but specifically in connection with a child, but when it is, an additional term denoting the child, son or daughter is almost always used - suggesting that "son" is not inherently a part of monogenes. So what does the word mean when it is there by itself as in John 1:14 and the Hebrews usage? In most translations, the translators read "son" into it, though every other usage suggests that is incorrect.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I just noticed that, too. It seems that the term is almost always used as "only" but specifically in connection with a child, but when it is, an additional term denoting the child, son or daughter is almost always used - suggesting that "son" is not inherently a part of monogenes. So what does the word mean when it is there by itself as in John 1:14 and the Hebrews usage? In most translations, the translators read "son" into it, though every other usage suggests that is incorrect.

I can't remember, and it's driving me nuts. I can easily find it when I go home in an hour.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes Sir

Ah. Okay. Do you think this is consistent with or contrary to the understanding expressed by the author of John?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe this will help: In Greek, the referent doesn't need to be immediate. It can be many lines above, and the arguments for what the referent actually is is complex. Usually the argument is stronger if the referent is in the same case, gender, and number, but even more important is the dominant participle(s) and verb(s).

You might know all that already. It makes translation a bit difficult.

 

[doppelganger]

Maybe this will help: In Greek, the referent doesn't need to be immediate. It can be many lines above, and the arguments for what the referent actually is is complex.

Yes, that's why I noted that I think the KJV translation of Luke 9:38 seems a bit off.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, duh! The masculine "only begotten" points to a male person.

 

[doppelganger]

Oh, duh! The masculine "only begotten" points to a male person.

Except monogenes is used to refer to a daughter elsewhere in Luke.

 

[Awoon]

Ah. Okay. Do you think this is consistent with or contrary to the understanding expressed by the author of John?

Wow. From my learning the man Jesus was born in the usual way (human Father and Mother) he was a Jew who probably had a mystical experience at a young age.

He was searching for something when he came upon John the B and related to John's preaching ie "The Kingdom of God." He was baptized after the manner which John taught. He as most mystics do went off to be alone to contemplate this teaching with his knowledge of the Tanac (sp) (law and the prophets). He concluded that his God and his understanding of his God was the way God wanted Humankind to live.

He taught after the manner of Abraham who worshipped God without a temple, bible, creeds. He didnt try to start a "new" belief system or religion, but returned to the hidden meanings of the teachers that preceded him (prophets of Israel).

He taught healing to his followers. He was a peaceful human who addressed and pointed out the good and positive of Humankind, ie the sermon on the mount.

He understood God to be the generator of humankind and taught God as a Parent, who loves and forgives all his children regardless of the troubles they get into. (prodigal Son story). Nothing to sacrifice to a parent from children.

His teachings were provocative to the the Jewish and Roman establishment (1st century Israel was a hot spot for the Romans), who wanted obedience to Rome without question regardless of human suffering, Peacemakers will cause that. MLK

John wrote with a sense that Jesus was so special that he could only have been sent by God. Thus the statements that Jesus and Jesus alone was The Word of God incarnate, (instead of the messenger of it) or I AM, a name for God.
(This could also be the early voice of the church when Christianity began to be a Religion about Jesus and not doing or following the Religion of Jesus). ie forgiveness, healing, being all inclusive. Because his death was a shock and blow to the followers who misunderstood his teachings. Most wanted a warrior Messiah, not a peacemaker Messiah. So his death and resurrection became the main theme of Christianity (for salvation of Humankind) instead of his teachings, that Humankind can achieve peace by following his and the teachings in the Law and Prophets.

Jesus was unique with his teaching of direct communication with God and without special mediators. ie Preists, Temples, creeds, mantras.

That's enough:yes:

 

[Awoon]

Now I'm going golfing with my brother and nephew

 

[Exceeder]

The bible doesn't really say I suppose. But what about virgin Mary? What proof do they have that Mary was INFACT a virgin?

 

[McBell]

Was Jesus a virgin?

What puzzles me is this:

Suppose he was a virgin. If so, then wasn't his understanding of humanity limited?

Suppose he was not a virgin. If so, then wasn't his virginity lost out of wedlock?

I'm not sure how this can be resolved....

wait...
I thought Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? (or however it is spelled)

 

[Tellurian]

Was Jesus a virgin?

What puzzles me is this:

Suppose he was a virgin. If so, then wasn't his understanding of humanity limited?

Suppose he was not a virgin. If so, then wasn't his virginity lost out of wedlock?

I'm not sure how this can be resolved....

The biblical Jesus was partially based on the historical Yeshu ben Pantera, who was born as the result of an adulterous affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier, which would have made Jesus a Mamzer. In Jewish society a mamzer was not allowed to get married, which would explain why the biblical Jesus was never married in the gospel stories.

Another reason would be that the gospel stories about Jesus originated from the Gnostic stories about Isu Chrestos, a phantom saviour from heaven. Isu Chrestos did not have his own physical human body because that would have been considered a pollution of the divine. His "borrowed" human body would have also avoided anything that would have been considered a form of "pollution", such as carnal relationships.

 

[McBell]

The bible doesn't really say I suppose. But what about virgin Mary? What proof do they have that Mary was INFACT a virgin?

Um...
the BIBLE says so.
Next question?