Virgin Birth Based on Outdated Beliefs About Conception?

[brown_bear]

It is precisely in order not to expose her to public ignominy that he decides to fire her in secret.

 

[Stephen_says]

Fulton Sheen has a good reflection on this. He doesn’t read The angel’s response as reassurance, but as reiterating why Joseph was afraid, that Joseph was afraid BECAUSE He believed the Child in her was conceived of the Holy Spirit. To Sheen, the verses can be read two different ways.

 

[brown_bear]

Because it would have meant a lack of trust in her who had already shown him that she deserved absolute trust.

 

[brown_bear]

We are working well on Saint Joseph, but I really don’t like this topic on the Virginity of Mary.

I mean: if you say my mother was a prostitute, what do I do? Should I politely explain to you why it wasn’t?

 

[LilyM]

It is precisely in order not to expose her to public ignominy that he decides to fire her in secret.

No. As I said earlier, ANY separation was disgraceful. The assumption by everyone would have been that he put her aside because she was not virtuous in some way.

All that “public” disgrace means is that he didnt take the added step of hauling her in front of the religious courts and giving details of exactly how he thought she had sinned.

 

[LilyM]

Fulton Sheen has a good reflection on this. He doesn’t read The angel’s response as reassurance, but as reiterating why Joseph was afraid, that Joseph was afraid BECAUSE He believed the Child in her was conceived of the Holy Spirit. To Sheen, the verses can be read two different ways.

So he shames a virtuous honourable.woman who he trusts utterly by sending her away and refusing to marry her? Not likely.

 

[FiveLinden]

As a non-believer interested in scripture I think the main thing to ask is: why was the story told?

First if all it is clear that there are many stories about women being impregnated by gods. It’s appropriate for people who are considered divine in the wide sense to have divine origins.

Bart Ehrman points out, also, that this story is unique in that the story tells of a conception that did not occur through a human woman having sex with a divine being. Rather, a miracle occurred.

I think the story was told to stress the belief of the writer(s) that Jesus was of divine origin and to confirm to their view of the nature of the Jewish God.

 

[LilyM]

We are working well on Saint Joseph, but I really don’t like this topic on the Virginity of Mary.

I mean: if you say my mother was a prostitute, what do I do? Should I politely explain to you why it wasn’t?

We all know she was nothing of the sort. However we have the benefit of hindsight and divine revelation which he didnt immediately have.

Christ’s conception was a unique miraculous.event. He was human and.fallible. I seriously doubt his mind would not immediately have gone to the natural human explanation of her pregnancy.

 

[brown_bear]

You speak as if you had lived up to yesterday in Palestine of the year zero and you knew exactly all the legal nuances and the practical repercussions, viable and not viable solutions … I have some doubts!

In any case this was the least thing he could do, nothing else he could do, so it seemed to Joseph after considering what was God’s will and the best way to protect Mary.

Was he wrong? Wasn’t he wrong? But what does it matter? After all, the angel told him what he had to do!

That’s enough: it is becoming a theoretical discussion and as a good Milanese I love practical things.

And the practical thing is: enough with these blasphemous discussions about the Virgin Mary! (you have nothing to do with it)

 

[paperwight]

Brown bear, you haven’t explained why you thought LilyM was swearing.

Is it perhaps a translation issue, in that you did not mean ‘cursing’ but ‘affirming as truth’ (which for future reference, is not the usual everyday usage).

 

[brown_bear]

Disrespect St. Joseph in one important thing, that is absolute love and trust towards the Virgin Mary.

Things that I then illustrated for about 10 comments, responding precisely to my interlocutor, so to say that I have not answered at all is really absurd.

In any case: continue to target me for a perfectible word, and let this topic unravel indefinitely, which is based on a blasphemy, that is, which questions the Virginity of Mary Most Holy, a very high sign of God’s presence among men.

 

[paperwight]

n any case: continue to target me for a perfectible word, and let this topic unravel indefinitely, which is based on a blasphemy, that is, which questions the Virginity of Mary Most Holy, a very high sign of God’s presence among men.

Oh, for goodness, sake, we are not accusing Our Lady of not being a virgin. Just trying to relate to how St. Joseph may have seen it before he had the message from the angel.

 

[LilyM]

Disrespect St. Joseph in one important thing, that is absolute love and trust towards the Virgin Mary.

Things that I then illustrated for about 10 comments, responding precisely to my interlocutor, so to say that I have not answered at all is really absurd.

In any case: continue to target me for a perfectible word, and let this topic unravel indefinitely, which is based on a blasphemy, that is, which questions the Virginity of Mary Most Holy, a very high sign of God’s presence among men.

Absolute love and trust? Absolutes are to God alone. St Joseoh, great though he is, is.not God to have the absolute of anything attributed to him.

 

[Stephen_says]

I mean there’s no magisterial teaching, so we can each believe what we think is the right answer, but I I am just relating that some prominent people see it the way it was described by @brown_bear as well, and I do not wish to start an argument, as this thread has garnered enough of that, so I am going to bow out.

Peace

 

[billsherman]

Wasn’t Luke actually a physician by trade?

So if even he didn’t venture to offer an explanation, this is saying something.

Why? He never offers a biological explanation of any of Jesus’ miraculous healings.

The purpose of his Gospel is to spread faith, not speculate on biological processes (and that assumes that Luke the Evangelist is the same Luke as the physician mentioned by Paul - most scholars think this is likely, but it’s not absolutely certain).

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Why? He never offers a biological explanation of any of Jesus’ miraculous healings.

Exactly.

Sceptics might argue, that if Jesus wasn’t actually a miracle worker but some sort of a charlatan, hoodwinking fishermen may have been one thing, but if educated men like Luke and Paul were satisfied the miracles were real, this gives them a higher grade of credibility.

 

[billsherman]

Exactly.

Sceptics might argue, that if Jesus wasn’t actually a miracle worker but some sort of a charlatan, hoodwinking fishermen may have been one thing, but if educated men like Luke and Paul were satisfied the miracles were real, this gives them a higher grade of credibility.

Oh. I see what you meant now.

I’m not sure I agree with this line of reasoning though. Just look at how many “sophisticated” investors were hoodwinked by Bernie Madoff, Jeff Skilling, and Trevor Milton.

Humans have an innate weakness to fall in love with things we desperately want to be true. Being told what we want to hear makes most of us jump for joy without proper due diligence.

 

[tuffsmurf]

And how could Joseph had known that she had always been faithful? It was not like they knew each other well, they had most likely never been alone together.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

And how could Joseph had known that she had always been faithful? It was not like they knew each other well, they had most likely never been alone together.

I have wondered this myself.

But seeing this was necessary for the prophecy to come to fruition, maybe God chose him for the task because he knew hew would believe it.

 

[Gorgias]

But the difference is is that this was what was culturally believed then. You see you just gave an example of trying to infuse modern ideas into an ancient text with your history channel example, you’re completely missing the point. It has been demonstrated that the doctrine of virgin birth is likely based off of ancient views of conception.

No, it hasn’t been ‘demonstrated’ as such. Rather, you’ve quoted one guy who claims “they would have understood ‘virgin birth’ as ‘Mary providing physical material and God providing life force for the baby’.”

Now, here’s the question: why does that matter, in the final analysis? Whether you go with the Aristotelian concept or a modern concept, the notion of a ‘virgin birth’ is nevertheless still an assertion that God stepped into the process in a miraculous way that caused a child to be conceived in Mary’s womb. How would one idea or the other stand in the way of that notion?

Now, however, such a belief doesn’t even seem to work logically.

I think you’re making the error in the opposite direction – rather than looking at it as a miraculous conception, you’re attempting to make it fit in a “scientific standpoint from a particular time.”

Read it as it’s intended to be read: God’s miraculous intervention in the context of the Incarnation of Jesus.