Was the Virgin Birth a mistranslation?

[nmgauss]

No word for cousin, nephew, uncle, aunt in old Hebrew or Aramaic.

They had to use convoluted ways to express the concept therefore brother was a catch all for all relatives.

Actually this is quite prevalent even today in some cultures.

–

You assume that the Gospels were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, I thought they were written in Koine Greek. Doesn’t the Koine Greek language distinguish between cousins, nephews, uncles, and aunts?

 

[nmgauss]

Some Protestant groups claim the Matthew 1:25 statement that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” to mean that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations after Jesus’ birth, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the biological sons of Mary and Joseph; and, thus, brothers of Jesus.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Sigh I would have thought this topic had been done to death already.

Regardless of whether the Isaiah translation is “young woman” or “virgin”, her argument fails to take into account:

(1) the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not rely on this verse from Isaiah to justify the virginity of Mary - in fact, Luke doesn’t even quote Isaiah!; and

(2) the way prophetic verses were used in the New Testament isn’t as simple as 1=1 correspondence, but there was a complex, holistic and typological approach. I mean, if you read the passage in Isaiah, you see that it was originally supposed to be applied to the time period in question, not to six or seven hundred years later.

Either way, I don’t see how her argument undermines the virgin birth.

 

[dronald]

Thank you for this, I never considered that Luke doesn’t even bother to quote Isaiah and yet Luke covers the virginity of Mary. I’ll keep this in mind when discussing with people in the future.

God bless.

 

[nmgauss]

The Eastern Christian traditions holds that St Joseph was a widower and advanced in age when Jesus was conceived. The brothers and sisters of Jesus were St Joseph’s children by his previous marriage.

I thought that Jesus was the oldest of his family.

 

[nmgauss]

Isaac and Ishmael were really the sons of Abraham because the Bible says explicitly that he sired them both. Solomon was really the son of David for the same reason. However, the Bible does not say that Mary bore any child other than Jesus, so your argument backfires.

Bible omissions are not proof that Mary remained a virgin. In fact, she may have had several babies.

Similarly, when Cain killed Abel, he departed from the Garden of Eden to find a wife. If Adam and Eve were the parents of all children that followed, then Cain must have found a sister to be his wife. The Bible does not give this detail, so we are left with our imaginations.

If other people were created at the same time as Adam and Eve, the Bible says nothing on that.

 

[PatrickC]

I thought that Jesus was the oldest of his family.

That’s the tradition… which I guess would make that unlikely.

 

[JerryZ]

I would like to know how any one jives Mary having other children, to having to move and live under the roof of the Apostle John after Jesus Death.

I mean in Jewish culture, taking care of one’s parents in their old age was very important, it is one of the commandments from God.
Or perhaps modern protestants believe Mary went to live in a retirement home in Florida?

Back in those days there were no retirement pensions, if a widow did not have children (male children) that could take care of her she would suffer and suffer a lot.
Poverty and destitution was the result.

The Bible speaks that the Temple was to provide help for the widows in this condition.
The early Church also talks about this in quite a few places of the New Testament.

So use your God given brains and think…WHY, WHY Jesus gives His mother to the trust and care of John if there were BROTHERS (Blood direct brothers) that had THE DUTY to take care of her.
Please! Let us know what is the result of your pondering of this!

–

 

[dmar198]

Bible omissions are not proof that Mary remained a virgin.

Well, I won’t dispute that, but in the study of Scripture, omissions are an important factor nonetheless, and in this case that particular evidence supports the position that Mary always remained a virgin. But we also have positive evidence of the fact from Scriptural and Patristic testimony, and that is even more important to consider than Scripture’s negative evidence. How do you deal with the fact that the Church’s Tradition holds that she was a perpetual virgin? For what purpose do you suppose that would be made up so early in Church history?

 

[Simca]

I do take this question very seriously and don’t mean to sound trite, but if Mary were Forever Young, instead of Forever Virgin, we’d all want to buy her brand of face cream

 

[nmgauss]

Well, I won’t dispute that, but in the study of Scripture, omissions are an important factor nonetheless, and in this case that particular evidence supports the position that Mary always remained a virgin. But we also have positive evidence of the fact from Scriptural and Patristic testimony, and that is even more important to consider than Scripture’s negative evidence. How do you deal with the fact that the Church’s Tradition holds that she was a perpetual virgin? For what purpose do you suppose that would be made up so early in Church history?

I am reminded of Ezra, the Scribe, a learned authority on the religion of the Israelites in Babylonia before the Torah was available in a single volume. He was given the task by the new Persian king, (who had conquered Babylonia), to unite the exiled Israelites (Golah) who had returned to Jerusalem with the those that had not been exiled to Babylonia. Most of the laws as formulated in the scattered writings of the Mosaic Law extant in Babylonia were imposed on those that had not gone into exile. These were new to the non-exiled Israelites who resented having the Mosaic Laws imposed upon them. At this time there was no Torah. Ezra had a difficult task trying to persuade the resident Israelites to accept these laws that were totally foreign to them. So, he tailored some the original Mosaic laws to be more acceptable to the non-exiled people. Through this process, the massaged Mosaic Laws became “The Torah”. Thus The Torah is an edited version of the original of Mosaic Law through Ezra’s changes. This became the foundation of Judaism.

Even though there may have been scrolls of portions of the original Mosaic Law, the version that became standard for Judaism was successful and thus accepted by the vast majority of Israelites, who then became Jews.

 

[dmar198]

I am reminded of Ezra, the Scribe, a learned authority on the religion of the Israelites in Babylonia before the Torah was available in a single volume. He was given the task by the new Persian king, (who had conquered Babylonia), to unite the exiled Israelites (Golah) who had returned to Jerusalem with the those that had not been exiled to Babylonia. Most of the laws as formulated in the scattered writings of the Mosaic Law extant in Babylonia were imposed on those that had not gone into exile. These were new to the non-exiled Israelites who resented having the Mosaic Laws imposed upon them. At this time there was no Torah. Ezra had a difficult task trying to persuade the resident Israelites to accept these laws that were totally foreign to them. So, he tailored some the original Mosaic laws to be more acceptable to the non-exiled people. Through this process, the massaged Mosaic Laws became “The Torah”. Thus The Torah is an edited version of the original of Mosaic Law through Ezra’s changes. This became the foundation of Judaism.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...e_content_width/hash/40/84/COOL-STORY-BRO.jpg

Even though there may have been scrolls of portions of the original Mosaic Law, the version that became standard for Judaism was successful and thus accepted by the vast majority of Israelites, who then became Jews.

While that all sounds very scholarly and is a well-constructed post, I am having a bit of difficulty seeing where the analogy connects with the Church’s Tradition about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the analogy something like, Ezra forced stuff that wasn’t true onto the older Israelites and passed it off as holy, and the early Church just did the same thing?

But why would they even invent the whole perpetual virginity thing so early? And why wasn’t it disproven quickly? Think about it this way:

Jesus had a family that included cousins and uncles and aunts. (You guys say he had full brothers too, but consider this–) Not all of them died in persecutions, and so His family members had descendants that made it into the third and fourth centuries, when the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity was already established. (And people kept their family lineages in mind back then, so they had this data.) If He had full brothers, therefore, why didn’t their descendants speak up? Why didn’t they say, Hey, why the heck are you guys saying she was a perpetual virgin, when I’m her descendant? We find no people who said such things – before the end of the fourth century the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was already established.

In addition to that, why would the bishops of the early Church make up such a thing? They weren’t big on making up doctrines. Their writings all speak about how important it is to hold to the doctrines of the Apostles and add nothing – but they included Mary’s perpetual virginity among the original doctrines they had received. Either they were liars, or they were lunatics, or they were telling the truth. Which do you believe, or do you think there is another option?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I remember in class asking my atheist feminist theology teacher (at Australian Catholic University) why the expert Jewish scribes translated the word ‘almah’ as ‘virgin’ 200 years before the Christ.

She was taken aback by the question and responded ……………… ‘maybe they didn’t know the Greek words for young girl’.

Love it.

On a related note, has anyone here looked at some other languages’ words for “virgin?”
German for example has: Jungfrau.

Just sayin’

 

[JerryZ]

hmmm, in old spanish there was the word “doncella” that was used to describe a young woman that had not had sexual contact.
In the Americas most recently the word applies to any young woman without the sexual connotation or even a maid.

–

 

[nmgauss]

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...e_content_width/hash/40/84/COOL-STORY-BRO.jpg While that all sounds very scholarly and is a well-constructed post, I am having a bit of difficulty seeing where the analogy connects with the Church’s Tradition about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is the analogy something like, Ezra forced stuff that wasn’t true onto the older Israelites and passed it off as holy, and the early Church just did the same thing?

But why would they even invent the whole perpetual virginity thing so early? And why wasn’t it disproven quickly? Think about it this way:

Jesus had a family that included cousins and uncles and aunts. (You guys say he had full brothers too, but consider this–) Not all of them died in persecutions, and so His family members had descendants that made it into the third and fourth centuries, when the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity was already established. (And people kept their family lineages in mind back then, so they had this data.) If He had full brothers, therefore, why didn’t their descendants speak up? Why didn’t they say, Hey, why the heck are you guys saying she was a perpetual virgin, when I’m her descendant? We find no people who said such things – before the end of the fourth century the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was already established.

In addition to that, why would the bishops of the early Church make up such a thing? They weren’t big on making up doctrines. Their writings all speak about how important it is to hold to the doctrines of the Apostles and add nothing – but they included Mary’s perpetual virginity among the original doctrines they had received. Either they were liars, or they were lunatics, or they were telling the truth. Which do you believe, or do you think there is another option?

In the early days of the Catholic Church very few people could read. Even many priests and bishops were illiterate. Thus they could be influenced to believe anything the
Church wanted them to believe. If it appealed to the emotional sensibilities of the parish, it was likely to be welcomed. The Bible was not the authority, the Church was. That is how indulgences could be sold to the uninformed.

Nowadays practicing one’s religion is more about feeling than thinking. That is one of the main reasons why the Scholastic Christians lost favor. Muslims also started out by using reason in following the Koran and the ahadith. But when the Sufi movement started and Al-Ghazali began to write his voluminous texts on transcendence, the sentiment among the non-intellectuals was that they wanted to get close to God and feel their religion.

The fact that after Bibles started being printed in large numbers, and Martin Luther wanted people to read the Bible for themselves rather than have to go through a priest was a great stimulus to people to become literate. In fact, the early American colonists, being primarily Protestants, were responsible for the high literacy rate, especially in the northern colonies.

So the secret to gaining power among illiterates is to appeal to their emotions rather than their intellect. When Faylasuf was emphasized in early Islam, it appealed mainly to the intellectuals. These Falsafahs admitted that a very simple form of Islam would have to be taught to the illiterate masses.

 

[JerryZ]

In the early days of the Catholic Church very few people could read. Even many priests and bishops were illiterate. Thus they could be influenced to believe anything the
Church wanted them to believe. If it appealed to the emotional sensibilities of the parish, it was likely to be welcomed. The Bible was not the authority, the Church was. That is how indulgences could be sold to the uninformed.

Nowadays practicing one’s religion is more about feeling than thinking. That is one of the main reasons why the Scholastic Christians lost favor. Muslims also started out by using reason in following the Koran and the ahadith. But when the Sufi movement started and Al-Ghazali began to write his voluminous texts on transcendence, the sentiment among the non-intellectuals was that they wanted to get close to God and feel their religion.

The fact that after Bibles started being printed in large numbers, and Martin Luther wanted people to read the Bible for themselves rather than have to go through a priest was a great stimulus to people to become literate. In fact, the early American colonists, being primarily Protestants, were responsible for the high literacy rate, especially in the northern colonies.

So the secret to gaining power among illiterates is to appeal to their emotions rather than their intellect. When Faylasuf was emphasized in early Islam, it appealed mainly to the intellectuals. These Falsafahs admitted that a very simple form of Islam would have to be taught to the illiterate masses.

So what you are saying is that Jesus lied when He said He would build His Church and that it would be protected by Himself.
Also strange that the Catholic Church after the fall of the Roman Empire was the keeper of the culture and civilization that had been destroyed by the barbaric invasions and without which we would have not been able to read about.
Thousands of monks in monasteries all over Europe copying and transcribing the texts, sacred and non. Hey but their Bishops were “illiterate”

Stranger still is that in Europe it was precisely the Catholic Church, the founder of Universities and Hospitals and houses of care for orphans and widows.

Did the Bible fall from Heaven? Who wrote it? When was the first bound volume “printed”?
Bear in mind the printing press was not invented untill 1450.

–

 

[FathersKnowBest]

In the early days of the Catholic Church very few people could read. Even many priests and bishops were illiterate. Thus they could be influenced to believe anything the
Church wanted them to believe. If it appealed to the emotional sensibilities of the parish, it was likely to be welcomed. The Bible was not the authority, the Church was. That is how indulgences could be sold to the uninformed.

You are confusing the late middle ages with the “Early Church.”

I think many protestants suffer from this misunderstanding.

Nowadays practicing one’s religion is more about feeling than thinking.

That may alas be true of protestantism. Catholicism says both are required, in proper balance.

That is one of the main reasons why the Scholastic Christians lost favor.

No, you’ve offered an effect, not a cause.
Some of the main reasons were plagues and wars, IMO.

The fact that after Bibles started being printed in large numbers, and Martin Luther wanted people to read the Bible for themselves rather than have to go through a priest was a great stimulus to people to become literate.

No, the availability of actual printed media was the great stimulus.

Prior to the invention of moveable type printing presses, a Bible would cost the equivalent of around $75,000 to $100,000 in today’s dollars.

The Church has always been the main promoter of education.

 

[nmgauss]

You are confusing the late middle ages with the “Early Church.”

No, the availability of actual printed media was the great stimulus.

The Church has always been the main promoter of education.

Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. The result was a great flowering of Protestant Christianity in German speaking areas.

The Church discouraged people from reading the Bible, because then no priest would be needed. Even today, Catechism is the standard mode of spreading Catholicism. The Bible is in the background. Education became promoted through the efforts of the Jesuits, and they came along rather late (in the mid 1500’s).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. The result was a great flowering of Protestant Christianity in German speaking areas.

Your history here is … faulty.

The Church discouraged people from reading the Bible, because then no priest would be needed.

Although that may have been taught in certain locations for certain times under certain conditions, it was NEVER the doctrine of the Church.

Where it was discouraged, the reason was simple: if the Bible isn’t read through the heart of the Church (you know, the Church which scripture says is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth”), it’s possible to draw all kinds of false beliefs from it, as witnessed by the state

of protestantism today.

Even today, Catechism is the standard mode of spreading Catholicism. The Bible is in the background.

Seriously?
The Catechism could and should be used in conjunction with Scriptures to focus on the proper interpretations. There are more scriptural citations in the Catechism than even in St. Paul’s letters (which are chock full of references to other scripture).

Education became promoted through the efforts of the Jesuits, and they came along rather late (in the mid 1500’s).

Yes, although before that time the Church had been educating and healing more than any other group prior.

 

[Monkey1976]

The Church discouraged people from reading the Bible, because then no priest would be needed.

Really? So no early father peppered their letters with Scripture? That’s why no Scripture is read during the Mass? That’s why there isn’t a plenary indulgence available for the pious reading of Scripture?

Even today, Catechism is the standard mode of spreading Catholicism. The Bible is in the background.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information - the study of Scripture is essential to learning the Faith. Catechesis supplements that.

Education became promoted through the efforts of the Jesuits, and they came along rather late (in the mid 1500’s).

There are at least 40 universities still in operation that date to before 1500 (the oldest of those dating to 1088), each of them founded by the Church. The Society of Jesus was formed in 1540. Pretty impressive, to have promoted education almost 500 years before they were founded.