Were there two virgin births?

[Estro Felino]

In the Greek Culture of the first century AD , virginity was not considered a value.
And in fact Saint Paul in his epistles to the Corinthians he says he is scandalized by this fact.
Saying in his culture it was a value....and he is shocked that premarital sex was normal in Corinth.
That is why the word "parthenos" only supposedly means virgin too.

 

[Estro Felino]

Wow...this thread was featured. Thanks RF.
Very very interesting thread

 

[Harel13]

Wow...this thread was featured. Thanks RF.

All it takes is a base amount of posts somewhere in the religion-related sections (not including DIRs and certainly not politics) to trigger the site's algorithm.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I think the "astro-myths" was the early original understanding - but later on, these astro-myths became forgotten and misinterpreted as personified issues, both as a personified god and goddess and "her son" as a person once living on the Earth.

I'm not following. What are "astro-myths" and what do they say about the Christian view of what happened in this story?

"Astro-Myths" is tellings of astronomical star constellations which is embedded in most ancient myths and religions.
If you for instants observe an imaged human like circumstellar star constellation rotate on the night Sky, you will see this human like figure in different revolving positions as "standing, flying, diving and laying. the mythical/religious telling then goes:

The figure laying down = Dead.
The figure standing up = Resurrection
The figure flying = Ascension
The figure dyving = Decension (Return towards Earth)

And there you have the essence of the numerous cultural telling of the Dying and Rising God which also fits the heritage story of Jesus which most likely is an astronomical-theological story.

 

[Harel13]

Native said: ↑
I think the "astro.myths" was the early original understanding - but later on, these astro-myths became forgotten and misinterpreted as personified issues, both as a personified god and goddess and "her son" as a person once living on the Earth.

"Astro-Myths" is tellings of astronomical star constellations which is embedded in most ancient myths and religions.
If you for instants observe an imaged human like circumstellar star constellation rotate on the night Sky, you will see this human like figure in different revolving positions as "standing, flying, diving and laying. the mythical/religious telling then goes:

The figure laying down = Dead.
The figure standing up = Resurrection
The figure flying = Ascension
The figure dyving = Decension (Return towards Earth)

And there you have the essence of the numerous cultural telling of the Dying and Rising God which also fits the heritage story of Jesus which most likely is an astronomical-theological story.

Soooo...are you saying that early Christians never believed the Jesus story - and possibly other Biblical stories - literally happened?

 

[Native]

Soooo...are you saying that early Christians never believed the Jesus story - and possibly other Biblical stories - literally happened?

I rather say that this astronomical/theological/mythical story became personalized in the Christian period.

 

[Harel13]

I rather say that this astronomical/theological/mythical story became personalized in the Christian period.

Still not following, sorry.

Let's try again. During Isaiah's time a prophecy was made that a women - according to common Christian interpretations, a virgin - was pregnant and would eventually come to give birth to a child who was to be called Immanuel. What do you think actually, literally happened at that time? Was a prophecy made? Was a child born? Was there a virgin woman there?

Next, during Mary's time, she was said to have been a virgin when she became pregnant and later gave birth to Jesus. What do you think actually, literally happened at the time? Was Mary a virgin? Was Jesus really born? Was Jesus even a real person?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I doubt Matthew is nefarious.

I agree.

Matthew would have a difficult time finding someone in his day who both cared what Isaiah was saying and yet hadn't checked the prognostications in Matthew's gospel.

Checked by whom -- Hebrew and/or Aramaic speaking 2nd Temple Period Jews in Israel or Jews and their Gentile neighbors living in the diaspora (e.g., Syria) and far, far more comfortable in Greek?
Checked where -- in some proto-Masoretic Hebrew scroll that speaks of an almah about to give birth. or in the Septuagint, which speaks of a parthenos destined to give birth?

 

[Native]

Still not following, sorry.

Let's try again. During Isaiah's time a prophecy was made that a women - according to common Christian interpretations, a virgin - was pregnant and would eventually come to give birth to a child who was to be called Immanuel. What do you think actually, literally happened at that time? Was a prophecy made? Was a child born? Was there a virgin woman there?

Next, during Mary's time, she was said to have been a virgin when she became pregnant and later gave birth to Jesus. What do you think actually, literally happened at the time? Was Mary a virgin? Was Jesus really born? Was Jesus even a real person?

Well, what do you think of Mary becoming pregnant without having been together with Joseph?

Quote from - Mary, mother of Jesus - Wikipedia

"Christians commonly refer to her as the Virgin Mary, in accordance with the belief that the Holy Spirit impregnated her, thereby conceiving her first-born Jesus miraculously, without sexual relations with her betrothed/husband".

Furthermore:
"Among her many other names and titles are the Blessed Virgin Mary (often abbreviated to "BVM", or "BMV" after the Latin "Beata Maria Virgo"),[21] Saint Mary (occasionally), the Mother of God (primarily in Western Christianity), the Theotokos (primarily in Eastern Christianity), Our Lady (Medieval Italian: Madonna), and Queen of Heaven (Latin: Regina caeli),[22][23] although the title queen of heaven was for centuries before an epithet for several ancient sky-goddesses — Nin-anna, Astarte, Ishtar et al. — including Astoreth, the Canaanite sky-goddess worshipped during the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah's lifetime.[24] Titles in use vary among Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, and other Christians".
------------
Here are several indications that "Mary" was/is a "Sky Goddess" - Which all confirms my perception of an astronomical/mythical/theological/religious telling of a certain celestial figure as described earlier.

IMO it´s also the similar case with the Isaiah "prophecy". It´s the same "prophecy" in different cultural periods.

 

[Harel13]

Here are several indications that "Mary" was/is a "Sky Goddess" - Which all confirms my perception of an astronomical/mythical/theological/religious telling of a certain celestial figure as described earlier.

IMO it´s also the similar case with the Isaiah "prophecy". It´s the same "prophecy" in different cultural periods.

I can tell that you believe that neither of these events happened. But what did/do Christians think? That's the topic of the thread.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Here are several indications that "Mary" was/is a "Sky Goddess" - Which all confirms my perception of an astronomical/mythical/theological/religious telling of a certain celestial figure as described earlier.

IMO it´s also the similar case with the Isaiah "prophecy". It´s the same "prophecy" in different cultural periods.

I can tell that you believe that neither of these events happened. But what did/do Christians think? That's the topic of the thread.

I guess the Christians did believe it all to be litterally and dogmatic truth despite the obvious impossibilities of a Virgin conception by the Holy Spirit, a factual dead, resurrection, ascension to the Sky and so on and so on.

This is just what I´m underlining in my replies.

 

[Harel13]

I guess the Christians did believe it all to be litterally and dogmatic truth

Okay, this is all I wanted to know with regards to this particular thread. Thanks.

(of course the topic of Isaiah and the NT can be taken in many directions, but the specific topic of this particular thread is what the Christians think about the possibility of there being two literal virgin births)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Checked by whom -- Hebrew and/or Aramaic speaking 2nd Temple Period Jews in Israel or Jews and their Gentile neighbors living in the diaspora (e.g., Syria) and far, far more comfortable in Greek?
Checked where -- in some proto-Masoretic Hebrew scroll that speaks of an almah about to give birth. or in the Septuagint, which speaks of a parthenos destined to give birth?

Good points. It still doesn't erase the other un-fulfillments in Matthew, but you maintain good points. Translation error could be at fault, and I think that depends on when it is written and by whom. I have heard different claims, each needing a different kind of author for Matthew.

A general discussion of the author, his milieu, and his intent is far beyond the scope of this thread.

Yes, and I have a tendency to gravitate away from topic, usually on some thing on my mind and often without noticing. It annoys people, so thanks for the note.

The fact remains that the that author seems to be reliant upon the LXX, and the connotation and denotation of parthenos is significantly different than that of almah. Whether you find this to be relevant is entirely up to you.

I'm not challenging the OP. I think its fair to ask, but he must know that that there isn't a perfect answer, though I'll make a guess. Why did the church embrace this claim about a virgin birth (and how early on) when its seems so obvious that Isaiah is not correctly cited? *and* since we rule out nefarious reasons what remains? Did early Christians (the OP) believe in two virgin births or one (because the assumption is that this is an early writer)? Well...incompetence can explain anything except for competence. Matthew seems to know (because of his 'Fulfillment' term and magic numbers (14 x 3) for Jesus generations) that he is not being literal. Maybe he is a terrible writer, though. I think it more likely he is misunderstood by the readers than that he intentionally misleading. Therefore I think the early church probably thinks there is one virgin birth only and then only later after the fact reinterprets Isaiah.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not challenging the OP. I think its fair to ask, but he must know that that there isn't a perfect answer

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Therefore I think the early church probably thinks there is one virgin birth only and then only later after the fact reinterprets Isaiah.

Interesting.

 

[firedragon]

Hello all.

"The LORD spoke further to Ahaz: “Ask for a sign from the LORD your God, anywhere down to Sheol or up to the sky.” But Ahaz replied, “I will not ask, and I will not test the LORD.” “Listen, House of David,” [Isaiah] retorted, “is it not enough for you to treat men as helpless that you also treat my God as helpless. Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned." etc (Isa. 7:10-16)

Christians generally interpret these verses as being a prophecy referring to the virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. However, it seems clear (though I may be wrong) that Isaiah is at the very least referring to a woman who was already alive at his time (considering that he was giving a sign to King Achaz). Does this mean that according to Christians there were two virgin births (one during Isaiah's time and one during Mary's)?

As you have pointed out in Isaiah 7:14 it doesnt say virgin, its young woman. Thus, the question of two virgin births doesnt arise here.

Nevertheless I get your point.

This Isaiah episode was "turned into" a prophecy. It was never one for Jesus the son of Mary. Firstly it was mistranslated heavily to make it one. I am no Hebrew expert. The extent of what I know ends with specific verses and those specific words, so a Jewish person here (who are almost always Hebrew speaking) can verify or criticise the below.

Isaiah 7:14 King James Version
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The most apparent and blatant mistranslation - Its not Virgin in this verse, its a young woman. Virgin is Bethula in hebrew but in this verse its Almah which means young woman. So this is an intentional and blatant mistranslation. In Genesis and all over the place e.g. Genesis 24:43 Almah is maiden, but miraculously in Isiah 7:14 word meanings change to virgin to fit the need of a need that arises 7 centuries later.

The grammatical misrepresentation - Haureh in Hebrew is not in the future tense. Its in the perfect tense. Just like in Genesis 16:11 where the KJV translates it “You are with child” but strangely in Isaiah 7:14 it changes all the grammatical rules and becomes a future tense. So they made it “shall be with child” as if its a future prophecy. This is something that has already happened, she is already with child, its not a future event.

Who is naming the child Emmanuelle? - The Karaw used here as Karat is feminine. It means she will call the child emmanuel. Here too, the KJV has mistranslated it.

 

[firedragon]

In the Greek Culture of the first century AD , virginity was not considered a value.
And in fact Saint Paul in his epistles to the Corinthians he says he is scandalized by this fact.
Saying in his culture it was a value....and he is shocked that premarital sex was normal in Corinth.
That is why the word "parthenos" only supposedly means virgin too.

Yet, in Isaiah 7:14, the greek Parthenos is wrong translation and its known.

 

[firedragon]

Soooo...are you saying that early Christians never believed the Jesus story - and possibly other Biblical stories - literally happened?

Depends on what you consider is "the Jesus story" you refer to. At least which story from which gospel?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I guess the Christians did believe it all to be litterally and dogmatic truth.

Okay, this is all I wanted to know with regards to this particular thread. Thanks.

(of course the topic of Isaiah and the NT can be taken in many directions, but the specific topic of this particular thread is what the Christians think about the possibility of there being two literal virgin births)

Maybe you also should consider the fact that in some cultural traditions it was prohibited to reveal the esoteric knowledge for non initiated, thus making two explanations of which one was told as literally and personal events.

Besides this, you cannot speak of "what Christians believed" as there were several Christian groups, for instants the Gnostic and their much alternative religious explanations.

 

[Harel13]

Maybe you also should consider the fact that in some cultural traditions it was prohibited to reveal the esoteric knowledge for non initiated, thus making two explanations of which one was told as literally and personal events.

I have. I dream of the day that a Jew will be able to infiltrate the Vatican and prove once and for all whether or not they're stashing down there the Temple's vessels.

More on topic, okay, maybe. However, there things that Christians are told outright this is a big mystery you can't grasp, such as the trinity. That's not said about the entire NT.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why did the church embrace this claim about a virgin birth (and how early on) when its seems so obvious that Isaiah is not correctly cited?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, in part because of the tense change from "why did the church embrace" to "Isaiah is not correctly cited".

I suspect that the author of gMt (a Greek text probably written circa 80 CE) was informed by the LXX and looked to it for prooftext. I see no evidence to suggest that it was obvious to the author or his milieu that there was anything problematic about the Greek rendering of the Hebrew almah.