WAS MARY A VIRGIN OR WAS SHE NOT?

[sami]

[font=Arial][/font][font=Arial]
Was Mary a virgin or was she not? What does the Bible prove?

I’ve read many internet posts that not only deny but make a
mockery of the virgin birth of Jesus. It seems they use as evidence for their theoretical position - the Hebrew word used to depict Mary as a virgin, ALMAH.

In the Bible books of Matthew and Luke, when compiling and penning their histories, used the term ALMAH ( maiden) or HA ALMAH (the maiden).

Those opposed to the biblical account, take that to infer that Mary was not a virgin – chaste. One must understand that under the ancient Hebrew system, a woman who was betrothed was looked upon as married. However, the couple were not to have sexual relations until the man took her from the home of her parents to his home.

To further define the betrothed state, if a betrothed woman had sexual relations with a man whom she was not betrothed, she was looked upon as an adulteress and the two who committed such an offense were to be executed. It is in this light, because of the binding nature of engagement, Joseph planned to divorce Mary, although no ceremony had united them in wedlock. Joseph could plan to give Mary, his betrothed, a certificate of divorce after he took her to his home. An engaged woman (virgin/almah) had a legal standing different from an unengaged woman (virgin/betulah). (Exodus 22:16, 17; Deuteronomy 22:23-29)

The controversy or issue arises because neither Matthew nor Luke used the Hebrew word BETULAH (fem.)VIRGIN: An unmarried young woman who is absolutely chaste. Strong's #: 1330

But used ALMAH - most often used to depict a female who has moved from child to young adult and of the age to marry. The Hebrew word NA-ARA can also be applied to a young unmarried woman-virgin.

The base of their argument lies in their understanding or lack thereof, of these Hebrew words.( BETULAH - ALMAH)

There is an example found in the Hebrew texts which sets a standard for defining BETULAH and ALMAH.

This example is that of Abraham who sent his servant (Eliezer) to find a wife for his son, Isaac. Genesis chapter 24

When Eliezer reached the land of Abraham’s relatives, he prayed to Jehovah for a sign that his choosing would be in harmony with God’s will. Genesis 24:13,14

Verse 16 describes the young woman - Rebekah as betulah (virgin) Strongs 1330 “An unmarried young woman who is absolutely chaste.� (not yet betrothed)

Eliezer asked the young woman for a sip of the water she had just drawn from the well. (in harmony with his prayer) Rebekah responded exactly as he had petitioned Jehovah as the sign that she was the one Jehovah had approved.

In verse 22 when all the camels had finished drinking “, the man took out for her a gold nose ring weighing a half shekel and two bracelets of gold weighing ten shekels.� – When Rebekah accepted these gifts, she became a betrothed, engaged woman -(Almah)

In verse 23 he inquires “Please tell me, whose daughter are you? Is there any room at your father’s house for us to spend the night?�

In vss. 24 - 27 She responds “I am the daughter of Be·thuʹel the son of Milʹcah, whom she bore to Naʹhor.�

25 And she added: “We have both straw and much fodder and also a place to spend the night.�

26 Then the man bowed down and prostrated himself before Jehovah

27 and said: “May Jehovah be praised, the God of my master Abraham, for he has not abandoned his loyal love and his faithfulness toward my master. Jehovah has guided me to the house of the brothers of my master.

In vss. 28 - 31 And the young woman (Hebrew, han na ara - virgin, girl; Greek, par·theʹnos ) ran to tell her mother’s household about these things.

29 Now Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laʹban. So Laʹban ran to the man who was outside at the spring.

30 When he saw the nose ring and the bracelets on the hands of his sister and heard the words of his sister Rebekah, who was saying, “This is the way the man spoke to me,� he came to meet the man, who was still there standing by the camels at the spring.

31 At once he said: “Come, you who are blessed by Jehovah. Why do you keep standing out here? I have made the house ready and a place for the camels.�

Eliezer proceeds to tell Laban and his family the entire story vss. 32-52… notice that in verse 43 Rebekah is now referred to as “the maiden� or in some translations “young woman� (Strongs 5959) in Hebrew ha-almah, the same word used for Mary in the accounts written by Matthew and Luke. A Virgin girl who had become betrothed, engaged.

So what was it that changed her status from BETULAH (verse 16) and ALMAH (verse 43)? The answer is in vss. 22 and 47. When the nose ring and the bracelets were placed upon her she agreed to the marriage, she was then engaged, betrothed to Isaac. Had she had sexual relations between vss. 16 and 43? No, she was a virgin, but her status changed from BETULAH ( not betrothed, engaged) to ALMAH (betrothed, engaged).[/font]

[Justin108]

Nothing in the Quran can be proven to be false, [...].

Have you read the Quran? Do you know the Quran well enough to make such an assersion?

Yes. I know enough about religious claims in general to know that they can never be disproved.

That wasn't my question, I didn't ask you about "religious claims in general" I asked if you have READ the Quran.

And I am saying that whether or not I have read the Quran is irrelevant. The logic is as follows.

- Religious claims in general cannot be disproven
- The Quran makes religious claims
- Ergo, the Quran (most likely) cannot be disproven

Either point out the flaws in my logic, or be so kind as to go ahead and disprove the Quran.

- Have you read the Quran? (This would usually require a "yes" or a "no" answer)

Have I read some of the Quran? Yes.
Have I read all of the Quran? No.
Does this do anything to disprove my point? No (as explained above)
Is hammering on whether or not I have personally read the entire Quran a Red Herring? Yes.

- Do you know the Qurant well enough to make such an assersion? (ditto)

Again, the logic is as follows.

- I know religions well enough to make such an assertion
- The Quran is the Holy Book of Islam
- Islam is a religion
- Ergo, I know enough about the Quran and the kind of claims it makes to make such an assertion


If the logic is too much for you to handle, then let's make this simpler. My friend Ismail tells me the Quran cannot be disproven. He has read the entire Quran. So by your logic, the Quran is just as accurate as Luke and Acts.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

QUESTION: Did Mary lie about her pregnancy to avoid being stoned?

Women lying about how they fall pregnant is as old as time, even in the bible there is the case of the Prophet Hosea who may well have suspected at least two of the children he raised, were not his own. So this raises the question did Mary lie about her own pregancy?




Many suggest that Mary fell pregant as a result of a normal sexual encounter (some suggest with a Roman soldier) and lied to her fiance about it for fear of being stoned. However, it should be noted that according to Hebrew law the only way Mary would have risked the death penalty would be if she went through with the marriage. Single women were not stoned for falling pregnant. Had Mary found herself pregant by someone other than her fiance , the first and most logical step would be to break off her engagement. This off course would result in public disgrace which would greatly reduce her chances of later marriage but that's better than being dead!

The fact that the report has Mary voluntarily telling her finance about her pregnancy before the marriage indicates she was taking this option, since Joseph's reasonable response would be to break off the engagement. Of course there was always the possibility that Joseph was either psycopathic or so vindictive he would consent to marry her and then on the wedding night, betray her confidence and report her condition in order to have her killed, but evidently Mary had enough confidence in Joseph's character not to believe him capable of what would have amounted to manslaughter. (It seems to me if she did have such a suspecion she would have made her pregancy known to at least her immediate family so that she had Witnesses of the circumstances of Joseph's consent. Indeed we don't know if they did, after all it is likely even in ancient times people knew how to count up to nine).

CONCLUSION Whether Mary was a virgin pregant by holy spirit or by normal means, her options were exactly the same: convince her finance to marry her and adopt the child or break of the engagement. The fear of potential execution is essentially irrelevant as long as she chose to inform her finance before they married (which evidently she did).

RELATED POSTS

VIRGIN Does the writer of Matthew "mistranslate" or "misapply" Isaiah 7:14?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p763618

Did Mary lie about her pregnancy to avoid being stoned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p898401

Are biblical hereditary rights based on biology?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p781898

When does Luke indicate Jesus was born?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p831863

Was Jesus a wicked baby?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p980517

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE VIRGIN MARY , JESUS CHRIST and ...CONCEPTION & BIRTH

[JehovahsWitness]

I know enough about religious claims in general to know that they can never be disproved.

Well if you mentioned the Quran solely to illustrate this point (leaving aside whether you are indeed qualified to make the specific assersion that you did) then I would say that would depend on what you mean by "religious claims in general". If you are refering to claims to have witnessed or (as the virgin birth) been subject to a miracle, then I would say, as I have been throughout this thread, that one can only analyse the context of the claim and come to a case by case consclusion as to their respective merit.

I don't think its accurate to say all claims are by way of the fact they are cliams of supernatual activity, equal because not all contextual evidence and transmission of reports are of not caliber.

[Justin108]

Many suggest that Mary fell pregant as a result of a normal sexual encounter (some suggest with a Roman soldier) and lied to her fiance about it for fear of being stoned. However, it should be noted that according to Hebrew law the only way Mary would have risked the death penalty would be if she went through with the marriage. Single women were not stoned for falling pregnant. Had Mary found herself pregant by someone other than her fiance , the first and most logical step would be to break off her engagement.

Perhaps her fling with the Roman soldier was just a one time thing? Perhaps she wanted to stay with Joseph? Perhaps she wanted to be with the Roman soldier but he didn't want to marry her and so instead she chose to go back to Joseph? You can speculate all you want about Mary's motives, it does not change the fact that her lying is more likely than immaculate conception.

This off course would result in public disgrace which would greatly reduce her chances of later marriage but that's better than being dead!

And if Mary lied and said it was immaculate conception, she would not only be alive but also without any disgrace. On top of that, she would be revered by the people as God's chosen, which she ended up being. So if this was a lie, it certainly paid off.

The fact that the report has Mary voluntarily telling her financé about her pregnancy before the marriage indicates she was taking this option, since Joseph's reasonable response would be to break off the engagement.

http://www.newsweek.com/woman-poured-ac ... and-746592

A fun little read on the ridiculous lies people tell for the sake of romance.

evidently Mary had enough confidence in Joseph's character not to believe him capable of what would have amounted to manslaughter.

Evidently, if you read the article I linked to above, the woman had enough confidence in her lover's acting abilities to risk both of them going to jail for murder. The woman's confidence was misplaced, but that's besides the point. People come up with insane lies for insane reasons. Would it have made so much more sense for the woman to simply leave her husband and run away with her lover? Yes. But instead, for whatever reason, she chose to murder him, throw acid on her lover's face and have her lover attempt to impersonate her husband. People tell absurd lies all the time. Virgins, however, tend to not fall pregnant.

CONCLUSION Whether Mary was a virgin pregant by holy spirit or by normal means, her options were exactly the same: convince her financé to marry her and adopt the child or break of the engagement. The fear of potential execution is essentially irrelevant as long as she chose to inform her financé before they married (which evidently she did).

CONCLUSION: Your personal speculation aside, the odds that she was simply lying far outweigh the odds that she was a pregnant virgin.

[Justin108]

I know enough about religious claims in general to know that they can never be disproved.

Well if you mentioned the Quran solely to illustrate this point (leaving aside whether you are indeed qualified to make the specific assersion that you did) then I would say that would depend on what you mean by "religious claims in general". If you are refering to claims to have witnessed or (as the virgin birth) been subject to a miracle, then I would say, as I have been throughout this thread, that one can only analyse the context of the claim and come to a case by case consclusion as to their respective merit.

By all means, pick anything in the Quran and disprove it. If claims should be investigated case by case, then choose any case you like in the Quran and prove to me that it is in fact false.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

Continued in the series of: Why would Mary Lie?" Having established that Mary did not have to claim an immaculate conception to avoid being stoned (I'm pregant, will you still marry me? would have been enough, we come to the question: If Mary wanted to lie about her pregancy to "save face" and get Joseph to marry her anyway, why would Mary restort to such an outrageous one?

A country girl from a small fishing community in the backwoods falls pregant. She fell pregant because she was seduced as a willing partner. She knows she must convince her fiancé to take her and her unborn child on as his own or risk public shame. She decides to lie, what reasonably will that lie be.

• OPTION #1 "I was seduced". The suggestion of it being by a Roman soldier is so unlikely I will not be dealing with it in this post (Jews and Gentiles had near on zero contact, and for a young Jewish virgin girl to find opportunity and freedom to spend time with a Roman soldier is far too outlandish for me to do justice in a few lines). Still young people are young people so she could have pointed the finger at a young local jewish boy or (if she was crazy) a Roman centurian. The problem with this option is that she would have to prove her accusation before a local court which might be somewhat problematic, since she would have no evidence and would have to provide details such as where they would meet and when which given the very limited freedom of unchaperoned movement a jewish girl would have had at the time might be a good lie but will not be an easy one.
  
  OPTION #2 "I was raped". This is going to be hard to pull off because of the cultural norms open to a young unmarried Hebrew virgin girls. There was no dating, no clubs no going out at night unchaperoned and unaccompanied - no going out at night at all for girls. Girls didn't have secular jobs, and if a girl were to work in the field or go to the market they did so in groups. Women and men did not generally mix as they do today so the opportunity to rape someone known or unknown was consideraby reduced. Also the law required the girl to scream increasing her chances of being resucued and since not doing so might be judged as consent and put her life at risk, there was considerable incentive to scream her head off. That said since there would still be the possibility this would probably be the lie that would come to mind, if that were the case.
  
  
  OPTION #3 "I was impregnated by God." This one has the advantage of not needing to produce any evidence and there not risk of being contradicted by conflicting accounts. But there is the one big drawback to this : Nobody is going to believe you. There is no reason why Mary would think anyone would believe this story - especially not at the moment when she is reported to have told Joseph. Some suggest "Well, that wouldn't be the first time a young person came up with a wild story" and this is true but the account presents Mary as a quite a sensible young woman and it seems that people had the same or a similar healthy dose of sceptism althought they were deeply religious.

Despite the diffulties in the other options, to bypass them in favor of the option that in all liklihood would allianate your fiancé who would likely conclude you are either mad (in which case does he really want a madwoman as the father of his future children) or deliberately insulting his intelligence, seems to me to be stretching credulity.

CONCLUSION The were other viable options to Mary; that the report has her taking the one that is most likely to guarantee her failure is in my opinion either evidence that she was mentally or emotionally unstable, something not born out but the surrounding information reported about her, or telling the truth.

RELATED POSTS

VIRGIN Does the writer of Matthew "mistranslate" or "misapply" Isaiah 7:14?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p763618

Did Mary lie about her pregnancy to avoid being stoned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p898401

Are biblical hereditary rights based on biology?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p781898

When does Luke indicate Jesus was born?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p831863

Was Jesus a wicked baby?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p980517

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JESUS CHRIST, APPEARANCE, and ...CONCEPTION & BIRTH

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 22 by JehovahsWitness]

Continued in the series of: Why would Mary Lie?" Having established that Mary did not have to claim an immaculate conception to avoid being stoned (I'm pregant, will you still marry me? would have been enough, we come to the question: If Mary wanted to lie about her pregancy to "save face" and get Joseph to marry her anyway, why would Mary restort to such an outrageous one?

A country girl from a small fishing community in the backwoods falls pregant. She fell pregant because she was seduced as a willing partner. She knows she must convince her fiancé to take her and her unborn child on as his own or risk public shame. She decides to lie, what reasonably will that lie be.

• OPTION #1 "I was seduced". The suggestion of it being by a Roman soldier is so unlikely I will not be dealing with it in this post (Jews and Gentiles had near on zero contact, and for a young Jewish virgin girl to find opportunity and freedom to spend time with a Roman soldier is far too outlandish for me to do justice in a few lines). Still young people are young people so she could have pointed the finger at a young local jewish boy or (if she was crazy) a Roman centurian. The problem with this option is that she would have to prove her accusation before a local court which might be somewhat problematic, since she would have no evidence and would have to provide details such as where they would meet and when which given the very limited freedom of unchaperoned movement a jewish girl would have had at the time might be a good lie but will not be an easy one.
  
  OPTION #2 "I was raped". This is going to be hard to pull off because of the cultural norms open to a young unmarried Hebrew virgin girls. There was no dating, no clubs no going out at night unchaperoned and unaccompanied - no going out at night at all for girls. Girls didn't have secular jobs, and if a girl were to work in the field or go to the market they did so in groups. Women and men did not generally mix as they do today so the opportunity to rape someone known or unknown was consideraby reduced. Also the law required the girl to scream increasing her chances of being resucued and since not doing so might be judged as consent and put her life at risk, there was considerable incentive to scream her head off. That said since there would still be the possibility this would probably be the lie that would come to mind, if that were the case.
  
  
  OPTION #3 "I was impregnated by God." This one has the advantage of not needing to produce any evidence and there not risk of being contradicted by conflicting accounts. But there is the one big drawback to this : Nobody is going to believe you. There is no reason why Mary would think anyone would believe this story - especially not at the moment when she is reported to have told Joseph. Some suggest "Well, that wouldn't be the first time a young person came up with a wild story" and this is true but the account presents Mary as a quite a sensible young woman and it seems that people had the same or a similar healthy dose of sceptism althought they were deeply religious.

Despite the diffulties in the other options, to bypass them in favor of the option that in all liklihood would allianate your fiancé who would likely conclude you are either mad (in which case does he really want a madwoman as the father of his future children) or deliberately insulting his intelligence, seems to me to be stretching credulity.

CONCLUSION The were other viable options to Mary; that the report has her taking the one that is most likely to guarantee her failure is in my opinion either evidence that she was mentally or emotionally unstable, something not born out but the surrounding information reported about her, or telling the truth.

Ok so instead of responding to the several arguments I made, you instead choose to make up arguments and essentially have a debate with yourself.

Your argument essentially amounts to "if I were Mary, I would tell a different lie". This argument has one big flaw, however. You're not Mary. You don't know what she was thinking and whether she was rational person in general. And of course the fact that people tell stupid lies all the time. Again, I point you to my article.

http://www.newsweek.com/woman-poured-ac ... and-746592

[JehovahsWitness]

Your argument essentially amounts to "if I were Mary, I would tell a different lie". This argument has one big flaw, however. You're not Mary.

Are you? Would that same "big flaw" not also apply to what you have to say?

You don't know what she was thinking and whether she was rational person in general.

Did I claim to know what she was thinking? I am simply analysing the availale information we have about here and drawing logical conclusion.

And of course the fact that people tell stupid lies all the time.

Emphasis MINE

That is true, however I should think this is rarer than you seem to be implying (which is why we can usually identify them as "stupid lies"). Most non-psychopaths have a tendancy to tell the truth. We cannot meet Mary and interview her, all we can do is conduct an analysis of relevant information and come to our own conclusions on the matter (as per my post above). In the real world lies of that proportion are usually reserved small children, psychopaths or politicians.



JW

RELATED POSTS

VIRGIN Does the writer of Matthew "mistranslate" or "misapply" Isaiah 7:14?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p763618

Did Mary lie about her pregnancy to avoid being stoned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p898401

Are biblical hereditary rights based on biology?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 98#p781898

When does Luke indicate Jesus was born?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p831863

Was Jesus a wicked baby?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p980517

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE VIRGIN MARY , JESUS CHRIST and ...CONCEPTION & BIRTH

[Justin108]

Your argument essentially amounts to "if I were Mary, I would tell a different lie". This argument has one big flaw, however. You're not Mary.

Are you? Would that same "big flaw" not also apply to what you have to say?

No because my argument does not rest on "if I were Mary", my argument is more along the lines of "a lie is a far more likely explanation than a pregnant virgin". Or do you not agree? How often have you come across pregnant virgins? And how often have you come across liars?

Did I claim to know what she was thinking? I am simply analysing the availale information we have about here and drawing logical conclusion.

The logical conclusion is that it is more likely that she lied than that she became pregnant while still being a virgin.

And of course the fact that people tell stupid lies all the time.

Emphasis MINE

That is true, however I should think this is rarer than you seem to be implying

Rarer than pregnant virgins?

Most non-psychopaths have a tendancy to tell the truth.

Mary probably did too. But just because she had a tenancy to tell the truth doesn't mean she always told the truth. Everyone I know has told a lie at some point. Some big, some small, some well thought out, others not so much... So Mary wouldn't have to be a psychopath for her to have told a lie. Even if it was a big lie.

We cannot meet Mary and interview her, all we can do is conduct an analysis of relevant information and come to our own conclusions on the matter (as per my post above). In the real world lies of that proportion are usually reserved small children, psychopaths or politicians.

In the real world, virgins don't fall pregnant. So which is more likely? That someone told a big lie? Or that a virgin fell pregnant? We have seen many examples of the former yet none of the latter.

[JehovahsWitness]

my argument does not rest on "if I were Mary".

Neither does mine.

Are you suggesting my arguments were solely based on imposing my personal worldview as opposed to an analysis of relevant information? I do believe I have to this point made reference to the historical, cultural legal and religious context of the narrative; what I don't recall saying in the course of my posts is "If I were Mary..."