Was Jesus a Virgin?

[doppelganger]

Wrong!

Ahem. The prophecy is that a "virgin (or maiden) would conceive." It is a NECESSARY COMPONENT OF THE STORY in mainstream Christian belief that Jesus is the literal son of God. The details of how that occurs are left out for obvious reasons ("it's magic"), but God engages in some form of reproduction with Mary, so that he can have a son to carry out his mission. And that Mary was a virgin was of apparent importance. The relationship is sexual.

Do you know how babies are made?

 

[Awoon]

There is a scripture that could suggest that Jesus had a Mother in Law.

 

[abdulbasith]

Ahem. The prophecy is that a "virgin (or maiden) would conceive." It is a NECESSARY COMPONENT OF THE STORY in mainstream Christian belief that Jesus is the literal son of God. The details of how that occurs are left out for obvious reasons ("it's magic"), but God engages in some form of reproduction with Mary, so that he can have a son to carry out his mission. And that Mary was a virgin was of apparent importance. The relationship is sexual.

Do you know how babies are made?

Wrong! We're told that a virgin would conceive. Doesn't have anything to do with a sexual act. In fact, the stress on her virginity would seem to argue against the sex act. In order for God to become one of us, God would have to have experienced human gestation and birth.

Your spin is nothing more than a cheap attempt at provocation.

Even the word "begotten" is used in a few versions

 

[Awoon]

"Only Begotten" means UNIQUE.. Raymond Brown Catholic Scholar.

 

[doppelganger]

"Only Begotten" means UNIQUE.. Raymond Brown Catholic Scholar.

Correct. "Only begotten" is translated from the Greek monogenes - from genus meaning "type" and monos meaning "only." "Unique" is probably a better translation than "only begotten."

But still, the "son" part is definitely there as well. That means somehow a haploid set of DNA from God found its way to one of Mary's eggs.

 

[Awoon]

Correct. "Only begotten" is translated from the Greek monogenes - from genus meaning "type" and monos meaning "only." "Unique" is probably a better translation than "only begotten."

But still, the "son" part is definitely there as well. That means somehow a haploid set of DNA from God found its way to one of Mary's eggs.

Issac is called Abraham's "only" Son. Ishmael was living at the same time.

So God's DNA was in which set of eggs? Sarah's or Haggar's?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why become a human if you're not going to have sex?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Issac is called Abraham's "only" Son. Ishmael was living at the same time.

So God's DNA was in which set of eggs? Sarah's or Haggar's?

I'll tell you if you can tell me if John's baptism is from men or from heaven.

 

[Awoon]

John's baptism was from Men.

Jesus dumped that practice after John got arrested because it makes one inclusive only to the religion that practices it and exclusive if one doesnt.

 

[doppelganger]

Issac is called Abraham's "only" Son. Ishmael was living at the same time.

So God's DNA was in which set of eggs? Sarah's or Haggar's?

Huh? Abraham's was in both, according to the story. I suspect, though I've not researched it (and invite anyone who has to chime in) that Isaac is Abraham's "only" son in the sense that Ishmael was a child of his concubine and not a legitimate child of marriage.

 

[Awoon]

Huh? Abraham's was in both, according to the story. I suspect, though I've not researched it (and invite anyone who has to chime in) that Isaac is Abraham's "only" son in the sense that Ishmael was a child of his concubine and not a legitimate child of marriage.

Issac was unique (only son) as Jesus was unique (only son).

None of us have clones we are ALL unique.:yes:

 

[Acim]

To know oh so little about this man between 13 and 30, and to believe he must absolutely be a virgin, strikes me as naive.

Some can accept idea that Paul persecuted Christians in his younger days but then had a huge change / conversion to realize divinity within his being.

But others cannot accept a Jesus who may have done what they today will argue is 'the right thing for many Christians to do, the natural, God-given thing for humans to do.'

On the flip side, engaging in (any) sexual activity doesn't necessarily equate to better understanding of humanity, especially if one's understanding is based on affirming what is real / lasting, rather than witnessing to impermanence and illusion of separation.

 

[doppelganger]

Issac was unique (only son) as Jesus was unique (only son).

None of us have clones we are ALL unique.:yes:

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?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Correct. "Only begotten" is translated from the Greek monogenes - from genus meaning "type" and monos meaning "only." "Unique" is probably a better translation than "only begotten."

But still, the "son" part is definitely there as well. That means somehow a haploid set of DNA from God found its way to one of Mary's eggs.

At the risk of being a dolt, but in the interest of conversation....

I believe that monogenes is a very rare word, perhaps "unique" to John. If that's the case, translation is obviously a problem.

Also - like in German - combination of words in Greek is very nuanced. So "monos" and "genus" have one range of meaning when not combined, and another range of meaning when combined. So a train of thought that combines "only" and "type" probably doesn't have the force to clearly define it as "only-type" or "unique."

 

[rusra02]

Why? Why would Jesus have to be a virgin? People married quite young then, and if the gospels are concerned about his ministry, they wouldn't be any more concerned about his family than about his bowel habits. We're not told that Jesus ever defecated, either. Does that mean he didn't???:faint:

(We need a Mr. Hanky emoticon...)

Jesus purpose in coming to earth was to glorify his Father, and finish his work, not to enjoy married life. (John 17: 4) There is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus married, unlike some of his apostles, who were married men. Jesus came to minister and give his life as a ransom. (Matthew 20:28). To claim the Bible would omit such a significant event as marriage in Christ's life is simply not credible.

 

[doppelganger]

At the risk of being a dolt, but in the interest of conversation....

I believe that monogenes is a very rare word, perhaps "unique" to John. If that's the case, translation is obviously a problem.

Also - like in German - combination of words in Greek is very nuanced. So "monos" and "genus" have one range of meaning when not combined, and another range of meaning when combined. So a train of thought that combines "only" and "type" probably doesn't have the force to clearly define it as "only-type" or "unique."

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.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I agree completely - at least for now.

I'd be more comfortable after I look it up (I'm not in the library now).

I looked at this a few years ago, and a reference in Plutarch comes to mind.

 

[SageTree]

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....

To address the 'Gnostic' question from another Post of yours...

The Gospel of Philip has something worth mentioning and might spur a further reading.

The text is perhaps most famous as a very early source for the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Though this is never explicitly stated in the document itself, she is described as Jesus' "lover" in some translations. Although the original text is missing from the papyrus scriptures discovered, some translations 'fill in' the gap, suggesting; “Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth.”

The Gospel of Philip has been cited for the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. Much of the Gospel of Philip is dedicated to a discussion of marriage as a sacred mystery, and two passages directly refer to Mary Magdalene and her close relationship with Jesus:

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
​

That passage is also interesting for its mention of Jesus's sister (Jesus's unnamed sisters are mentioned in the New Testament at Mark 6:3), although the text is confusing on that point: she appears to be described first as the sister of Jesus's mother Mary, then as the sister of Jesus, although this may be a translation problem. Mary Magdalene is called Jesus's companion, partner or consort, using the word koinônos, of Greek origin, and the word hôtre, of Egyptian origin. The other passage referring to Mary Magdalene is incomplete because of damage to the original manuscript. Several words are missing. The best guesses as to what they were are shown below in brackets. Most notably there is a hole in the manuscript after the phrase "and used to kiss her often on her...." But the passage appears to describe Jesus kissing Magdalene and using a parable to explain to the disciples why he loved her more than he loved them:

And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.
​

However, "mouth" is not necessarily the word after "kiss her... on her". It may have been another body part and simply shown respect.

Food for thought.
And the Text itself is worth a look in my opinion.
I enjoy reading it now and again.
Brings in the Feminine side of the Mystery.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[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 can tell you off the bat that the NIV, ESV, and KJV are all translating different Greek texts. That would explain the differences in translation.

As for Luke - well - I might be wrong in the rarity of monogenes.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

This form is repeated by the author of Luke at 8:42, again not reading any sense of son/daughter/child into monogenes because the author adds thygater ("daughter"). But at 9:38, the author does not add "son" or "daughter" after monogenes, because he is repeating from early the sentence that it is a son. This gets translated as "only child," but perhaps that's not correct given the way this author uses the word. Maybe it should be:
"And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only."

With the context indicating that monogenes ("only") refers to his son (huios) as used earlier in the sentence.

Hebrews 11:17 uses monogenes by itself as does John, and it's usually translated as including the notion of son-ship within the word as "only begotten"