I have heard that that word most often translated as "virgin" is elsewhere translated as "maiden" aka young woman just out of girlhood. I always wonder how much emphasis has been placed on that translation effect:-).
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)
Dank Christian Memes
127 readers
12 users here now
A place for the finest of dank christian memes to simmer.
This community isn't inherently religious, but don't be an ass to religious people. There's a fine line between poking fun at religion and being an ass to someone because of (or lack of) religious beliefs. Don't cross that line.
Other than that, just follow the lemmy.blahaj.zone instance rules.
If this flag offends you, I'll help you pack:
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
Sure, but also, the post here starts with a false premise. In the story we're talking about, Mary doesn't produce Jesus on her own. She's impregnated by God. Why would Jesus only have Mary's DNA? A better question is if he has any of her DNA. He could easily be made bespoke, with Mary just a surrogate. The answer to that question isn't in the story - believing Jesus is actually related to Mary by blood is wholly an article of faith.
In the context, the most likely translation does mean virgin.
There's a lot to that - e.g. transgressions passed down - but also there seems a lot that could be said against that as well, e.g. looking at David's lineage including an actual prostitute, so not only is God not "above" using sinful people, but He in fact often uses the weak things of the world to show how foolish the "wise" are.
I am no biblical scholar, so I cannot weigh in on what the various likelihoods are - e.g. are the odds for vs. against 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, etc.? But the point I was making here is that the odds, to me, seem to not be infinity to zero. Even if they were very very high like 9:1, that's still a good enough chance at being wrong that if someone saw that on a weather forecast they might legit bring along an umbrella, if they had something important to protect like a laptop or even a brand-new hairdo that they don't want to ruin the day before the special event it was meant for. And this is so crucial that I do not want to miss it even at the risk of stating the obvious: people's lives, especially for eternity, are far more important than a chance of rain.
So what are the chances that this INTERPRETATION is incorrect? It's not like "the Church" has never been shown to be incorrect before...
So yeah, I do wonder.
-
There are also odds that the earth is flat. But the facts about Jesus's lifetime are quite extraordinary, it's not hinging on the virgin birth.
-
Joseph had a vision that Jesus was conceived of a virgin. Hymen tests would have been a thing then so he could have possibly proved it.
-
Jesus performed miracles which were witnessed by many
-
Jesus claimed to be God and the person of the prophecies
-
Jesus was crucified, dead and buried
-
After three days the tomb He was buried in was empty, stone rolled away, guards had no idea what happened
-
He was seen around after His resurrection by many people
-
Many of those people that saw Him including 11/12 (new) disciples died on that fact, refusing to refute it
-
Jesus fulfilled many prophecies
Personally I find the likelihood of this being true so high and so reliable compared to other religions/belief systems including atheism or agnosticism, that I choose to follow it.
- It does blow my mind that the interpretation of who God is doesn't seem to hinge upon the virgin birth, and in fact may be all the stronger if not.
- What was that vision though - that "she would have a child, and that God was in charge of the situation"? Or that "as a virgin she will have a child, by God"?
After this, you switched contexts btw, talking about Christianity as a whole, rather than the singular point of whether Jesus was born from a "virgin" vs. "maiden". However, Christianity is not all one unified things - we know that it is good & pure & true when it does things like take care of widows & orphans, feeds the homeless, visits the sick & in prison, etc.; but we also know that "Christianity" is false if it includes things like priests having the right to sexually abuse little children. Also in the USA, many people are equating "being Christian" with "voting Republican, no matter who the nominee is (and what crimes they may have already committed)". These behaviors persist despite verses such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 that say explicitly never to add anything.
Rather, the Bible literally commands us to "Test everything against what we know to be true" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and Matt. 24 gives explicit warnings against people trying to add all manner of falsehoods, etc.
So, not knowing any of Greek, Aramaic, the Jewish language and especially that of the ancient Semites, I cannot really "test" whether the Bible says that Jesus was a virgin. And seeing all the other ways that others are misusing the scriptures to mean whatever they want it to, I am skeptical. God is pure power incarnate and would not be diminished in the least if He chose to be born to a non-virgin, imho, but I could see how others who place more value on human superstitions than whatever may have actually happened could see things differently. Which, aside from my laziness to dig deeper into finding the real truth of the matter, is what keeps me stuck in my doubt. And anyway, as we both said, it doesn't really seem to matter either way:-).
I think the reason why a virgin was chosen was to show it was without a doubt not the son of any human man but literally conceived by God. Although I think they kept it under wraps and most thought He was Joseph's son.
Doesn't this just prove that God is male?
It depends on what type of reptile Mary was