Who impregnated Mary?

[Zzyzx]

.
Who impregnated Mary?

If Jesus was “the son of god�, then “god� must be the father – and must have impregnated her.

However, doesn’t “scripture� say that Mary was impregnated by “the holy spirit�? Aren’t “god the father� and “the holy spirit� supposed to be DIFFERENT parts of the triad?

Wouldn’t that make Jesus the “son of the holy spirit�?

Was there an “angel� involved?

[Goat]

Her Son was crucified and she didn't have any input? What "input" would you have? You do believe in the crucifixion....don't you?

I believe that many Jewish people were crucified. As for 'Her Son' being crucified, that is a total red herring and not referring to her being able to relate the story that she was virgin to some people decades upon decades after the supposed happenstance.

I am quite sure the authors of Luke and Matthew didn't talk to Mary about it.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Well, let's see, that is a mistranslation, since in the Hebrew, Almah does not mean virgin. If you read it in context, you can see that Isaiah was talking about his wife, and his own son, and the prophecy was not so much a child being born, but rather having a child being born and growing up be a 'timer' that certain things would occur as a Sign to King Ahaz.

After all, the next paragraph mentions how Isaiah made sure it happened 'I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived (had intercourse with her). That hardly could be Mary.

The prophecy was fulfilled much later when Immanuel (God with us) was born.

In whose estimation is it a "mistranslation?" Do you just randomly pick what you believe are incorrect translations? What did God say to call the child of Isaiah...the one you are speaking of? Was it Immanuel? No, it was "call his name Maher-shalai-hash-baz."

"Virgin" in [Is.7:14] is....#5959 Virgin, almah, a lass (as veiled or private); damsal, maid, virgin. That applies to the mother of the Messiah, of Immanuel.

Uh no.. . Strong might claim 'almah' means virgin, but frankly, strong is wrong.
And, I will point out "Jesus" is not "Immanuel".

Plus, you are totally ignoring the issue I pointed out about 'context'. You ignore the passages I point out, and just go off on a tangent. Is that honorable debate?

Let's look at Isaiah 7:14

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714o.html


This seems cut and dry, does it not? Matthew listed out the genealogy of Jesus, and in accordance with a standing prophecy, the Messiah is born of a virgin. (The New International Version also provides a similar rendering.) Or is he? Let’s further examine Isaiah 7:14 in greater detail.

Chapter 7 of Isaiah relates the tale of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria laying siege to the Kingdom of Judah. G-d sent Isaiah to Ahaz to let him know that divine intervention was at hand. Isaiah told Ahaz that this intervention was at hand and he would know it to be so when given the sign named in Isaiah 7:14. Let’s look at the prophecy in its proper context.

Isaiah 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy G-d; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. [12] But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. [13] And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my G-d also? [14] Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [15] Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. [16] For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (KJV)

Verses 11 and 16 do a perfect job of putting verse 14 in its proper context. "Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." This means the conflict will be resolved shortly after the child is born. This event is to take place within Ahaz’s lifetime, more than 500 years before Jesus was born. What sense does it make to offer a sign to Ahaz if it wasn’t going to come to pass within his lifetime?

There are three keywords here:

1) "Behold!" -- This is to tell us that the fulfillment of teh prophecy would be imminent. Had this been a Messianic prophecy, it would have been in long term language, such as "in those days to come..."

2) "Therefore, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign..." -- The word "sign" is also important here. We are not dealing with a miracle. We are dealing with a sign, something that all can see. A sign would be of the nature of "behold, and you shall see three concentric rainbows." A miracle, however, is something that defies physics in most cases, and is visible for all to see, also. No matter how virtuous she was thought to be, something that requires a gynecological examination for verification doesn't fit seamlessly into this definition.

3) Mary didn't name her son Immanuel, which is the fulfillment of the prophecy. Christians object, saying it's the meaning of the name that counts, but this is simply not the case. Divine inspiration on the part of the mother was part of this prophecy, and that inspiration was to lead to the boy's naming. Mary named her boy Yeshu, which became translated into Greek and then anglicized into Jesus.

This creates a dilemma: given the context of this passage, who was the object of this fantastic virgin birth, more than half a millenium prior to Jesus?

The answer makes the issue a bit more complicated. A problem that we have here in one of mistranslation. Let us examine a proper rendering of the verse in question:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel. (Artscroll)

A slight, yet significant change, wouldn’t you say? The word that the prophet used is pronounced "almah," which means maiden or simply, a young woman. Granted, most young women are virgins, but not all virgins are young women. The word for virgin, "be’tulah," is not completely synonymous with "almah." Given the context, there’s no real reason to think that this young woman, this "almah," is a virgin who
would conceive a child in some supernatural way.

[Slopeshoulder]

[quote="whirlwindThe story is written...the claim is made in the Word. His Word is truth.

That is a circular argument. Not credible debating.

It is also against the rules in this forum.


But while I'm here; Prophecy is a literary form. It means speaking truth to power. It was either educated guessing about consequences of certain paths of action or or written after the fact. It is NOT predicting the future. You've been lied to or learned from ignoramuses if you think otherwise.

Or...you have been lied to and taught by fools if you think other than His Word is truth.

Prophecy if "written after the fact" wouldn't be very prophetic. In the past prophecy did indeed tell what would happen. As He said, "It is finished" then prophecies are closed...no new events but today's prophets and apostles are Divinely inspired to speak His Word. The Spirit reveals understanding and they in turn speak that revelation to others.

There are no virgin births, miracles, or magic anything. God is never quoted in the Bible (or anywhere else). To take any of that literally is to 1. miss the broader point and 2. think like a child. Yo can capitalize the word, "Word," all day long and all you have is your favorite book. It is not the co-eternal logos in written form (even if there is a co-eternal logos).

It may be a wonderful scripture, but to read like you do is shall we say primitive. It might be better to get some expert advice and perhaps some mediation in reading it, like Jews, cartholics, and oprthodox do. The older I get the more I think the collusion of the vulgar translation, the printing press and the reformation removal of mediation was a mistake. Look at what it brough us, posts like the quote I, er, quoted.

"Primitive?" "Think like a child?" My goodness Slopeshoulder....that's a tad vulgar in and of itself...don't you think?

Well, His word may be truth. But it's your word that concerns me. Not the same thing.

FYI, I was taught new testament at Yale by Richard B Hays. Google him. He's VERY Christian, and rather conservative actually. Also by Leander Keck and Brevard Childs. And taught theology by Hans Frei, David David Kelsey and Cornel West. Google them too. Among many others.

You mis-take the meaning of "prophecy," and repeat a common misunderstanding among the theologically illiterate or fundamentalist. Something IS prophetic if it has deep insight and speaks truth to power, specifically from a couragous religious viewpoint. THAT is the real definition of prophecy, not prediting the future; only fundies and kids still think that.
I challenge you to PROVE (and I mean really argue, with data, logic, evidence, and high quality religious scholarship) that 1. you are right and 2. the ordained and confessing faculties of the leading divinity schools and seminaries are wrong. Do you have evidence and arguments that are neither circular, a priori, ad hominum nor emotional? I haven't seen any so far in your various posts, just a bunch of repeated fundy formulae and platitudes put forward as if they are god's truth, when they are merely your unsubstantiated opinion. Please refer me to any exception I may have missed.

Vulgar? Not vulgar. To repeat, and to be as clear as I can, as a former seminarian I believe that arguments, interpretations and rationales like those you present, which are basically out of the fundamentalist playbook, are truly intellectually primitive and child-like. You see, if one memorizes the Bible and a lot of shallow, simple, and false arguments, the kind that are dimissed with derision and some humor by every high end professional exegete and theologian i have ever met, studied with, or heard of, you are not gaining credibility, knowledge or wisdom; you are merely working against god by spreading falsehoods and discredited notions. And to repeat them over and over, condemning to hell as apostates anyone who disagrees with you, is also dangerous and intellectiually, theologically, morally, and politically toxic and offensive. Do you seek to learn, really learn, or just to mouth fundy formulae? If you are willing to look at fundamentalism closely, the publications of the ongoing Fundamentalism Project chaired by Martin Marty (the most renowned living American church historian) are great. The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong is also very good.

I suspect you're used to arguing with atheists, but let me assure you, there are MANY people of faith who devote their lives to religion and the study and practice of it who will fight fundamentalism to the end. They're getting organized (finally). I'm one of 'em. Nice to meetcha.

Note that I write to engage you but also for readers who may find the topic important.

[McCulloch]

The story is written...the claim is made in the Word. His Word is truth.

If there is a God, then his word would be truth. There is no evidence that the Christian Bible is the Word of God.

There are some stories shown lately on television saying the word "virgin" doesn't mean it as we now understand it.

Television is not the best source of knowledge. Try reading.

That isn't correct. In the prophecy given six hundred and fifty years before His birth...it is written:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

You mean that in 650 BCE they spoke in English?

It wouldn't be much of a sign if an unmarried young girl gave birth. The sign is she was a virgin...not simply an unmarried girl, as some profess the meaning of virgin to be...but a virgin as in never having known a man.

Read up on how important the first born is in ancient Hebrew culture. A woman typically is young when her first born arrives.

[whirlwind]

The story is written...the claim is made in the Word. His Word is truth.

If there is a God, then his word would be truth. There is no evidence that the Christian Bible is the Word of God.

Good morning McCulloch,

I believe the truth has been proven time and time again. Others don't and never will. What is evidence to one is not to another.

There are some stories shown lately on television saying the word "virgin" doesn't mean it as we now understand it.

Television is not the best source of knowledge. Try reading.

That was my point.

That isn't correct. In the prophecy given six hundred and fifty years before His birth...it is written:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

You mean that in 650 BCE they spoke in English?

Come on McCulloch

It wouldn't be much of a sign if an unmarried young girl gave birth. The sign is she was a virgin...not simply an unmarried girl, as some profess the meaning of virgin to be...but a virgin as in never having known a man.

Read up on how important the first born is in ancient Hebrew culture. A woman typically is young when her first born arrives.

Yes I know but what does that have to do with this?

[Flail]

A related question arises. If Mary was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit, if stars were aligned in the heavens, if centuries of prophecy were fulfilled and wise men were drawn to Bethleham bearing gifts; why did the entire event go underground,

Persecution!

why was nothing written or told about the intervening years of Jesus childhood,adolescence,adult years until he was thirty years old? What had this God been up to in the interim?

It is written in Luke.....

Luke 2:40, 42 And the Child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon Him. (42) And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

2:46-47 And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.

2:48-49 And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And He said unto them, How is it that ye sought Me? wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?

2:50-52 And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them. And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

He was being "filled with wisdom and understanding," during the early years. After His visit to the synagogue He "was subject unto them," the "them" being Joseph and Mary....until we read of Him at "about thirty years of age." There is significance in everything in the Bible. Some we understand now...some we may understand later.

How were the details of his birth preserved in the minds of people during all those decades of silence? The book of Thomas(not in the Bible) has some of this but wouldn't one expect the details of such a supernatural event as a virgin birth of the one true God to garner some press after the fact? To me it appears to be nothing more than an 'authorial jump in time', for the convenience of the narrative tale

After the crucifixion Mary was with John and as he was an apostle and writer of the gospel....he knew and communed with the other apostles and writers. And you must realize this was not a normal human endeavor.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son!

so...Mary,Joseph, the wise men, the innkeeper etc etc, kept this virgin birth of God a secret for thirty years, then Mary told John and John told other apostles and then 70 years later one of them wrote a version of what he could recall of what they told him, leaving out almost every detail of those first thirty years of Jesus life...yea, that's 'straight from the horse's mouth'...

[McCulloch]

I believe the truth has been proven time and time again.

Then it should be a simple thing to copy and paste or link to such proof.

Others don't and never will.

The problem of disbelief is a philosophical difficulty for theism. If the existence of God is so evident, then why do intelligent people with good will not believe? Obviously the evidence is not quite so clear cut as you would have us believe.

What is evidence to one is not to another.

This comment appears to be an attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the nature and understanding of evidence. Really what have you got other than "The Bible tells me so"; "I feel in in my heart" and "Lots of others believe it" ?

There are some stories shown lately on television saying the word "virgin" doesn't mean it as we now understand it.

Television is not the best source of knowledge. Try reading.

That was my point.

Oh, well then. My point was that the controversy about the meaning of the words translated as virgin is not some new thing unearthed by some muckraking television documentary. It has been debated by serious scholars for quite some time. The impression that I got from the way that it was phrased, is that you were trying to bypass the seriousness scholarly history about this one issue and present it as one would yet another surfacing of Noah's ark or some new hidden Bible code.

That isn't correct. In the prophecy given six hundred and fifty years before His birth...it is written:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

You mean that in 650 BCE they spoke in English?

Come on McCulloch

Look at the context.

Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

"He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

Which two kings would those be?

It wouldn't be much of a sign if an unmarried young girl gave birth. The sign is she was a virgin...not simply an unmarried girl, as some profess the meaning of virgin to be...but a virgin as in never having known a man.

Read up on how important the first born is in ancient Hebrew culture. A woman typically is young when her first born arrives.

Yes I know but what does that have to do with this?

The virgin, in the sense of a young woman, a primigravida, will be with child and bear a son. In the cultural mythos of the ancient Jews, a deliverer was always the first-born.

[whirlwind]

A related question arises. If Mary was a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit, if stars were aligned in the heavens, if centuries of prophecy were fulfilled and wise men were drawn to Bethleham bearing gifts; why did the entire event go underground,

Persecution!

why was nothing written or told about the intervening years of Jesus childhood,adolescence,adult years until he was thirty years old? What had this God been up to in the interim?

It is written in Luke.....

Luke 2:40, 42 And the Child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon Him. (42) And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

2:46-47 And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.

2:48-49 And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And He said unto them, How is it that ye sought Me? wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?

2:50-52 And they understood not the saying which He spake unto them. And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

He was being "filled with wisdom and understanding," during the early years. After His visit to the synagogue He "was subject unto them," the "them" being Joseph and Mary....until we read of Him at "about thirty years of age." There is significance in everything in the Bible. Some we understand now...some we may understand later.

How were the details of his birth preserved in the minds of people during all those decades of silence? The book of Thomas(not in the Bible) has some of this but wouldn't one expect the details of such a supernatural event as a virgin birth of the one true God to garner some press after the fact? To me it appears to be nothing more than an 'authorial jump in time', for the convenience of the narrative tale

After the crucifixion Mary was with John and as he was an apostle and writer of the gospel....he knew and communed with the other apostles and writers. And you must realize this was not a normal human endeavor.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son!

so...Mary,Joseph, the wise men, the innkeeper etc etc, kept this virgin birth of God a secret for thirty years, then Mary told John and John told other apostles and then 70 years later one of them wrote a version of what he could recall of what they told him, leaving out almost every detail of those first thirty years of Jesus life...yea, that's 'straight from the horse's mouth'...

Did the innkeeper know of the virgin birth of Christ or did he know about the birth of a child? If it was simply a child would that be something he announced somewhere?

On the other hand, Mary and Joseph....who certainly knew about the virgin birth

Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

[whirlwind]

so...Mary,Joseph, the wise men, the innkeeper etc etc, kept this virgin birth of God a secret for thirty years, then Mary told John and John told other apostles and then 70 years later one of them wrote a version of what he could recall of what they told him, leaving out almost every detail of those first thirty years of Jesus life...yea, that's 'straight from the horse's mouth'...

Did the innkeeper witness anyone's birth? If he did would he have been told it was the Christ child?

Luke 2:6-7 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Nothing is said about the innkeeper. But, we do have the shepherds....

2:8-11 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

You may see the shepherds as literal shepherds but consider that they are shepherds of God's children in the world (the field is the world). The children are the flock they keep watch over. The good news was brought to them. Unto them is the child born.

2:15-19 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

The shepherds, those that lead God's sheep, "made known abroad"....and they do so today. "But Mary kept all these things." Why?

Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

2:7-8 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

That of course was a lie....he wanted to kill Him and the wise men were warned of this.

2:11-12 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

Notice that they are no longer in a manger but in "the house." Jesus is no longer a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes but is now a "young child." So the question of why Mary kept these things to herself is answered....Herod!

2:13-16 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

Was this event being talked about? Yes, by some but you see the reason it wasn't announced. You must also consider there were no printing presses, no Fox News or CNN.

[whirlwind]

Well, His word may be truth. But it's your word that concerns me. Not the same thing.

Please specify where my word is an untruth or why you're concerned.

FYI, I was taught new testament at Yale by Richard B Hays. Google him. He's VERY Christian, and rather conservative actually. Also by Leander Keck and Brevard Childs. And taught theology by Hans Frei, David David Kelsey and Cornel West. Google them too. Among many others.

How wonderful for you.

You mis-take the meaning of "prophecy," and repeat a common misunderstanding among the theologically illiterate or fundamentalist. Something IS prophetic if it has deep insight and speaks truth to power, specifically from a couragous religious viewpoint. THAT is the real definition of prophecy, not prediting the future; only fundies and kids still think that.

Taking into account my handicap of being illiterate....I understand what prophesy is...and was. The prophets of Biblical times were Divinely inspired by our Father. They foretold what would be. Some prophecies have happened and some have yet to happen. Today's prophets receive Divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit to understand the written word.

I challenge you to PROVE (and I mean really argue, with data, logic, evidence, and high quality religious scholarship) that 1. you are right and 2. the ordained and confessing faculties of the leading divinity schools and seminaries are wrong. Do you have evidence and arguments that are neither circular, a priori, ad hominum nor emotional? I haven't seen any so far in your various posts, just a bunch of repeated fundy formulae and platitudes put forward as if they are god's truth, when they are merely your unsubstantiated opinion. Please refer me to any exception I may have missed.

Vulgar? Not vulgar. To repeat, and to be as clear as I can, as a former seminarian I believe that arguments, interpretations and rationales like those you present, which are basically out of the fundamentalist playbook, are truly intellectually primitive and child-like. You see, if one memorizes the Bible and a lot of shallow, simple, and false arguments, the kind that are dimissed with derision and some humor by every high end professional exegete and theologian i have ever met, studied with, or heard of, you are not gaining credibility, knowledge or wisdom; you are merely working against god by spreading falsehoods and discredited notions. And to repeat them over and over, condemning to hell as apostates anyone who disagrees with you, is also dangerous and intellectiually, theologically, morally, and politically toxic and offensive. Do you seek to learn, really learn, or just to mouth fundy formulae? If you are willing to look at fundamentalism closely, the publications of the ongoing Fundamentalism Project chaired by Martin Marty (the most renowned living American church historian) are great. The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong is also very good.

I suspect you're used to arguing with atheists, but let me assure you, there are MANY people of faith who devote their lives to religion and the study and practice of it who will fight fundamentalism to the end. They're getting organized (finally). I'm one of 'em. Nice to meetcha.

Note that I write to engage you but also for readers who may find the topic important.

It is nice to meet you too...regardless of the UnChristianlike words. Did your august collection of theologians not teach you the basics of Christianity? I fear I am so beneath your standards and so illiterate as to bore you with teachings the Holy Spirit has given me....so, good day

[Flail]

so...Mary,Joseph, the wise men, the innkeeper etc etc, kept this virgin birth of God a secret for thirty years, then Mary told John and John told other apostles and then 70 years later one of them wrote a version of what he could recall of what they told him, leaving out almost every detail of those first thirty years of Jesus life...yea, that's 'straight from the horse's mouth'...

Did the innkeeper witness anyone's birth? If he did would he have been told it was the Christ child?

Luke 2:6-7 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Nothing is said about the innkeeper. But, we do have the shepherds....

2:8-11 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

You may see the shepherds as literal shepherds but consider that they are shepherds of God's children in the world (the field is the world). The children are the flock they keep watch over. The good news was brought to them. Unto them is the child born.

2:15-19 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

The shepherds, those that lead God's sheep, "made known abroad"....and they do so today. "But Mary kept all these things." Why?

Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

2:7-8 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

That of course was a lie....he wanted to kill Him and the wise men were warned of this.

2:11-12 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

Notice that they are no longer in a manger but in "the house." Jesus is no longer a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes but is now a "young child." So the question of why Mary kept these things to herself is answered....Herod!

2:13-16 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

Was this event being talked about? Yes, by some but you see the reason it wasn't announced. You must also consider there were no printing presses, no Fox News or CNN.

Yes,almost any scenario is possible, except the Jesus was God part...IMO.