Because that would disqualify Jesus from being the Messiah.
Depends on your “defintion” of Messiahhood I guess, as in it being
a) herited (from mother, similar to as in royal families), or
b) Son of God-ness, or
c) destiny (for one personified “soul-being”), or
d) other “definition”, or
e) combination thereof.
In other words, is Jesus Christ the Messiah because he was born to, or by, the Blessed Virgin Mary, or is the Blessed Virgin Mary the Blessed Virgin because she gave birth to Jesus Christ, or does it apply both, or otherwise?
[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44:2[/BIBLEDRB]
There is no physical gate in Jerusalem that only Jesus passed through. Thus, the gate being referred to by the prophet is Mary’s womb.
So or so, I am certain it does not refer to enforced (as in doing something to, in this case and view, a woman, something which she, and relatives, wouldn’t want to be done) medical procedure, though if it actually refers to a lower female body part and medical procedure, the LORD surely had very good reasons and sense for such (e.g. regarding education and upbringing), as in e.g. celibacy during pregnancy and Caesarean cut. Though in the view of womb and enter, as in “enter in this world”, then verse 2 would partially seem to be referring to (long-term) mishap, verse three to pregnancy and birth. Nevertheless, when Jesus Christ was the only child of his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, there is the possibility of “brother/s”, respectivly brother-friends or sister/s, as in children of Joseph, of other Joseph’s wife, (of) other persons in same “household”, and/or by the father.
And, at least personally, and when talking about body parts, it rather appears as it [44:-5] is about mouth and tongue kisses regarding the mentioned gate-mouth (with the emphasis in verse 5 unto male reader), and with
“sit in it” - being called(/told) by mother (to grab meal)
“eat bread before the LORD” - eat alone in place, and/or earlier
“he shall enter” - by his own action (respectivly kind of pre-destined to as child), in this interpretation
“porch of gate” - unexpectedly, in this interpretation
and both mentions of LORD in verse 2 referring to the one and the same persona in this interpretation
“In the first place, we know this concerning you, that you were born through fornication” - Chapter 2:7
The Sanhedrin wanted to deny He was the Messiah. Since they knew the Messiah was to be born from a virgin they needed to deny His virginal birth by saying that He was born “through fornication”.
The Sanhedrin may have come to such conclusion by a years-old document and a statement by the Blessed Virgin Mary quoted on such document respectivly statement by Mary quoted by the person who wrote on such document, quote which may in itself be true as having been said though not necessarily the truest in which was said as it may have been used as a cover - for which there are various possible explanations albeit likely only one is true. Though, if the birth was through fornication, to use that against sure isn’t nice, expressed mildly, regardless of how the alleged fornication happened if it happened.
And a raped virgin is technically still a virgin herself, which doesn’t make go away the evil that happened as in harm done regardless of whether we consider the “occurence” of rape by biologically male animals as intended (for different, though not all, species) in a divinly (given) nature or not, with huge cultural differences between humans and animals of course. By previous sentence, or anyhow, not saying that it was rape in the case of aforementioned 2:7, and not excusing the perpetrator/s if it was rape.
