The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective

[Mr E]

It's not a subject for the easily offended and it's not my intent to sway opinion or belief. -not in my job description. This is simply an alternative point of view, likely to be different than anything you've encountered before. It's not an attack on the faith. If you'll hear me out, you'll discover it simplifies, clarifies and bolsters Christ followers. But it isn't what you're accustomed to hearing. If your faith in God absolutely rests upon the idea of a virgin birth, anything presented here can only disturb your peace. I suggest skipping it. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm presenting alternative, and very -unorthodox views. If any of it upsets you- please disengage and forgive me for not engaging with you if you are among those disturbed by the ideas presented. I'm not espousing that anyone should adopt these thoughts, but maybe some will consider them. Seek to understand them and in so doing understand that there really are alternatives to orthodoxy that aren't crazy or clever lies or heretical blasphemy, though that will be the label sought (guaranteed). These are just thoughts, ideas of the take it or leave it variety.


Stop me if you've heard this one....

-told in the manner of C.S Lewis and his famous Screwtape Letters and following his thoughts-

The Devil and his demons were awaiting the promised son of David-- this son of man and son of God, one within the other. And though they knew he would come, they also knew that they had no power to stop all that had been foretold and promised and that which was now greatly anticipated, even if only by a few. They knew.

So a meeting was held ahead of that coming day- and Satan opened the floor for suggestions on how to counter, minimize or negate this anointed one who was imminently expected to arrive on scene. -He must be killed- some suggested, -And make a martyr of him? > that might only amplify his effect, was the concern. One underling suggested-- Make him an offer. Offer to set him up as King. Tempt him, bribe him, persuade him, help him. It's worked before. It worked with Joseph, it worked with Moses, it worked with David....

Yes, yes.... of course I'll try replied the Devil--- but we must have a fall back plan.

Putting their heads together they floated a couple of ideas and made plans to implement these through the religious leaders at the temple-- We could make him out to be a liar. We could make him out to be a lunatic- a mad man, who has deceived himself and is trying to deceive others.

All good ideas, worthy of trying- said Satan.... but I have a better idea yet. We absolutely will accuse him of being both a lunatic and a liar... and absolutely we will have him killed, but also this--- We will plant a small weed in the field of his seed. We will let it grow to the very end of the age.

Jumping and shrieking, the demons danced with joy at the brilliance of their leader--- What is the plan? What is the weed? How will you discourage people from following him?

The Devil turned toward Jerusalem, raised his hands and declared-- We'll tell them--- he's unique.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

And Mary said,

“My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior, because he has looked upon the humble state of his servant.
For from now on all generations will call me blessed, because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; from generation to generation he is merciful to those who fear him. He has demonstrated power with his arm; he has scattered those whose pride wells up from the sheer arrogance of their hearts. He has brought down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up those of lowly position; he has filled the hungry with good things, and has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, as he promised to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

 

[marks]

The Devil turned toward Jerusalem, raised his hands and declared-- We'll tell them--- he's unique.

Monogenesis - of a single generation, that is, the only one generated this way. The only begotten Son of God. He is unique.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

Monogenesis - of a single generation, that is, the only one generated this way. The only begotten Son of God. He is unique.

Much love!

I hate to do this to you friend, but this is going to be a bit like Joe Biden at Chinese New Years.

While I agree with you regarding the son of God, we likely differ on the simplest understanding of terms- like 'monogenesis' and even 'begotten.' They both have well-founded definitions we should agree on, but likely don't. I accept the dictionary definitions- do you?

And I would also consider it a side conversation apart from this specific discussion. This one is about a son of man and his beginning.

At the heart of it, is a story.

 

[Mr E]

 

[marks]

like 'monogenesis'

I've given you mine, so you'll know whether they are the same. No matter, I just wanted to bring that up.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

I've given you mine, so you'll know whether they are the same. No matter, I just wanted to bring that up.

Much love!

Maybe you aren't familiar with the standard and accepted terminology--

monogenesis--- is the theory of human origins which posits a common descent for all human races.

begat--- (typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

 

[Mr E]

This is the story of a young girl. Some say, she was as young as 15 or 16 years of age- some speculate even younger, but we simply don't know precisely. She was a young girl. Unmarried. A virgin.

That's where her story starts. Once, upon a time a young virgin got pregnant. Well, that's not exactly true. The truth is-- that happens all the time. No, her story is different because it begins with the visitation of an angel. Right out of the gate- it's different. It's already far outside of the experience of almost everyone, and we have barely begun.

Let's get the low hanging fruit out of the way first, before we really dive in. I'm not going to make a federal case out of Isaiah's use of alma (young girl of marrying age) versus the Greek translation and usage. Too easy. Let's stipulate that Mary was both a young girl and a virgin at the beginning of her story. Interestingly-- and @Johann might appreciate this- the oldest sources suggest that Matthew wrote his account in Hebrew, that was translated into Greek. Unfortunately we don't yet have those earliest Hebrew manuscripts, but we do have a handful of external sources that make the proposal- The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”

Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

BLOG ? READ ? SHARE? COMMENT ?

crossexamined.org

It's neither here, nor there-- but it would have some bearing perhaps on whether Matthew intended to invoke "virginity" so prominently in her story, or if that was a product of translation and later oral tradition. The gospel of Luke was not written by one of the twelve, but by a sort of biographer, who interviewed witnesses and compiled testimony and recollections. And even of the twelve so-called 'eyewitnesses' none of them were witnesses to this story, which took place some thirty years prior to the assembly of what we call the twelve.

We have these two accounts of what happened and that is all we have.

 

[Johann]

This is the story of a young girl. Some say, she was as young as 15 or 16 years of age- some speculate even younger, but we simply don't know precisely. She was a young girl. Unmarried. A virgin.

That's where her story starts. Once, upon a time a young virgin got pregnant. Well, that's not exactly true. The truth is-- that happens all the time. No, her story is different because it begins with the visitation of an angel. Right out of the gate- it's different. It's already far outside of the experience of almost everyone, and we have barely begun.

Let's get the low hanging fruit out of the way first, before we really dive in. I'm not going to make a federal case out of Isaiah's use of alma (young girl of marrying age) versus the Greek translation and usage. Too easy. Let's stipulate that Mary was both a young girl and a virgin at the beginning of her story. Interestingly-- and @Johann might appreciate this- the oldest sources suggest that Matthew wrote his account in Hebrew, that was translated into Greek. Unfortunately we don't yet have those earliest Hebrew manuscripts, but we do have a handful of external sources that make the proposal- The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”

Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

BLOG ? READ ? SHARE? COMMENT ?

crossexamined.org

It's neither here, nor there-- but it would have some bearing perhaps on whether Matthew intended to invoke "virginity" so prominently in her story, or if that was a product of translation and later oral tradition. The gospel of Luke was not written by one of the twelve, but by a sort of biographer, who interviewed witnesses and compiled testimony and recollections. And even of the twelve so-called 'eyewitnesses' none of them were witnesses to this story, which took place some thirty years prior to the assembly of what we call the twelve.

We have these two accounts of what happened and that is all we have.

Nope, @Mr E I would submit you have become enamored by the Jewish rabbi's--since you think that you know the Jewish mindset--and is casting doubt on our Scriptures--here is something to think about.

In reference to your comment that Luke was “never a disciple of Jesus. He was just a person with an opinion.” I would have to disagree with you. I think Easton’s Bible Dictionary has said it well (emphasis mine).

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO – was written by Luke. He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord’s ministry, but to have gone to the best sources of information within his reach, and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

You are quite correct, Luke was not a direct disciple of Yeshua. He was a disciple of Rabbi Shaul. However, he did careful research, which is his claim. The historical accuracy of his book is well substantiated today. The New Bible Dictionary summarizes the historical accuracy of his work:

The historical trustworthiness of Luke’s account has been amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. While he has apologetic and theological interests, these do not detract from his detailed accuracy, although they control his selection and presentation of the facts. He sets his narrative in the framework of contemporary history; his pages are full of references to city magistrates, provincial governors, client kings and the like, and these references time after time prove to be just right for the place and time in question. With a minimum of words he conveys the true local colour of the widely differing cities mentioned in his story. And his description of Paul’s voyage to Rome (27) remains to this day one of our most important documents on ancient seamanship.[5]

It seems to me that he is more than a guy spouting off his own opinion. Luke was a careful and accurate investigator whose work has stood the test of time and objective analysis. We can trust his account of the life of Jesus and of the early years of the Messianic Jews.

The Book of Luke is Invalid

The Anti-Missionary’s Charge: I do not understand why you would want to quote from Luke (Acts) who: was not Jewish and was never a disciple of Jesus He was just a person with an opinion. HaDa…

www.hadavar.org

Furthermore---

There are threescore melakhot (queens), and fourscore pilagshim (concubines), and alamot (young unmarried virgins) without number [T.N. Alamot is plural of almah, "virgin," alamot, "virgins;" see Shir HaShirim 1:3; Yeshayah 7:14; Bereshis 24:43; Shemot 2:8; Mishlei 30:19 where the word means explicitly or implicitly "virgin" and where "young woman" is not an adequate rendering, in this case, since the King was hardly interested in only young women in his harem, but demanded "virgins"; the older Jewish translations like Harkavy's so translated the word as "virgin" in this verse until it became politically incorrect to do so in later, more liberal Jewish translations into English].

Isa_7:14 Therefore Hashem Himself shall give you an ot (sign); Hinei, HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin) shall conceive, and bear Ben, and shall call Shmo Immanu El (G-d is with us)
Mat_1:23 HINEI, HAALMAH HARAH VYOLEDET BEN VKARAT SHMO IMMANU-EL (Behold, the Virgin will be with child and will bear Son and will call his name Immanu-El--Isa 7:14; cf page vii), which translated means G-d is with us.

Gen_3:15 And I will put eivah (enmity, personal hostility [see Ezekiel 35:5]) between thee and HaIsha (see HaAlmah, Yeshayah 7:14), and between thy zera and her Zera; it shall crush thy rosh, and thou shalt strike his akev (heel).

Gen_24:43 Hinei, I stand by the ayin hamayim; and it shall come to pass, that when haAlmah [haAlmah used here as synonym for na’arahbetulah, Genesis 24:16; see Isaiah 7:14, p.vii-xii] cometh forth to draw mayim, and I say to her, Give me, now, a little mayim of thy jar to drink;

Exo_2:8 And Bat Pharaoh said to her, Go. And haalmah [see Gn 24:43; Isa 7:14] went and called the em hayeled.
OJB

See how many Ha-Almah you can find with the Definite Article @Mr E --and come back to me

Also, I think, maybe I'm wrong--that you are in denial of the virgin birth? Correct me if I'm wrong...

Mat 1:18 The huledet (birth) of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach was as follows. When Moshiach’s Em, Miryam, had been given in erusin to Yosef [ben Dovid], but before they came together, she was found with child through the Ruach Hakodesh.

It doesn't take a "scholar" to know what this verse is saying--again

Mat 1:20 Now just when Yosef [ben Dovid] had thought through to this tachlis (purpose) hinei! A malach Hashem appeared to him in a chalom, and said, Yosef ben Dovid, do not shrink from taking Miryam in nisuim (marriage) as your [basherte (destined mate) aishes chayil (virtuous woman)] kallah (bride), because what has been conceived in her is through the Ruach Hakodesh.

The rabbi's are in denial of this

Mat 1:21 And she shall bear BEN (Son) and you will call SHMO (his name, Zech 6:12) YEHOSHUA (Zech 6:11-12) because he will bring his people yeshuah (rescue, salvation, deliverance) from their peyshaim (rebellions).

Mat 1:22 Now all this occurred so that which was spoken by Hashem through the Navi might be fulfilled,

Mat 1:23 HINEI, HAALMAH HARAH VYOLEDET BEN VKARAT SHMO IMMANU-EL (Behold, the Virgin will be with child and will bear Son and will call his name Immanu-El--Isa 7:14; cf page vii), which translated means G-d is with us.

Again, we don't need a scholar to re-interpret this portion of scripture for us--hence the blatant, uncalled for attack on the accounts of the Gospels--in fact, the whole New Testament--from a "side" that needs to be born again--a remnant.

J.

 

[Johann]

We have these two accounts of what happened and that is all we have.

Do you really believe this? What about the other accounts that we do have?

I don't want to be in your face @Mr E --your OP say, "An UN-Orthodox perspective" but from what you are posting it seems very Orthodox.

Do you believe in the account of the virgin birth of Yeshua--or not?

J.

 

[Johann]

Monogenesis - of a single generation, that is, the only one generated this way. The only begotten Son of God. He is unique.

What dictionaries are you using @marks?

 

[Mr E]

In reference to your comment that Luke was “never a disciple of Jesus. He was just a person with an opinion.” I would have to disagree with you. I think Easton’s Bible Dictionary has said it well (emphasis mine).

Be accurate when you quote me please. Better yet, use the quote feature to ensure you get it right. I never said Luke was never a disciple of Jesus. Those are your words. Your representation is dishonest.

I said he was not one of the 12. Are you going to dispute that?

 

[Johann]

Be accurate when you quote me please. Better yet, use the quote feature to ensure you get it right. I never said Luke was never a disciple of Jesus. Those are your words. Your representation is dishonest.

I said he was not one of the 12. Are you going to dispute that?

That wasn't me quoting you, part of the post you did not read, obviously.


Luke became a follower after the Lord's death, when Paul taught him the gospel. Luke had been a physician, but he left that profession to travel with Paul. He had the opportunity to talk with many of the Apostles as well as others who were eyewitnesses to special events or moments in the Lord's life.

Are you going to dispute this? Just because Luke wasn't an apostle, is the gospel of Luke fallible?

 

[marks]

Maybe you aren't familiar with the standard and accepted terminology--

monogenesis--- is the theory of human origins which posits a common descent for all human races.

I'm not referring to anthropological theories, I'm talking about the meanings of Koine Greek words.


It appears here in the form monogene. The son of a single generation. Unique.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What dictionaries are you using @marks?

I learned this in Greek class. I've also researched this word over the years.

I use a lot of them, but mostly nowadays I look at Vincent and Robertson because they are on my computer, so it's quick. But I've got Strongs and Thayers and Berry and the Apostolic Polyglot that has it's own lexicon.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It's neither here, nor there-- but it would have some bearing perhaps on whether Matthew intended to invoke "virginity" so prominently in her story, or if that was a product of translation and later oral tradition. The gospel of Luke was not written by one of the twelve, but by a sort of biographer, who interviewed witnesses and compiled testimony and recollections. And even of the twelve so-called 'eyewitnesses' none of them were witnesses to this story, which took place some thirty years prior to the assembly of what we call the twelve.

That sums it up then. You question God's inspiration, or whether or not someone changed the Scriptures to make it look like Jesus was virgin born.

Much love!

 

[Johann]

That sums it up then. You question God's inspiration, or whether or not someone changed the Scriptures to make it look like Jesus was virgin born.

Much love!

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

[Mr E]

That wasn't me quoting you, part of the post you did not read, obviously.


Luke became a follower after the Lord's death, when Paul taught him the gospel. Luke had been a physician, but he left that profession to travel with Paul. He had the opportunity to talk with many of the Apostles as well as others who were eyewitnesses to special events or moments in the Lord's life.

Are you going to dispute this? Just because Luke wasn't an apostle, is the gospel of Luke fallible?

Refer to your post # 8

Here is me, quoting you- supposedly quoting me. Except I never said what you said I said. Clear?

Nope, @Mr E I would submit you have become enamored by the Jewish rabbi's--since you think that you know the Jewish mindset--and is casting doubt on our Scriptures--here is something to think about.

In reference to your comment that Luke was “never a disciple of Jesus. He was just a person with an opinion.” I would have to disagree with you. I think Easton’s Bible Dictionary has said it well (emphasis mine).

 

[marks]

I'm not referring to anthropological theories, I'm talking about the meanings of Koine Greek words.

View attachment 30454
It appears here in the form monogene. The son of a single generation. Unique.

Much love!

@Mr E

I'm curious what struck you as funny. Care to share?

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

I learned this in Greek class. I've also researched this word over the years.

I use a lot of them, but mostly nowadays I look at Vincent and Robertson because they are on my computer, so it's quick. But I've got Strongs and Thayers and Berry and the Apostolic Polyglot that has it's own lexicon.

Much love!

You should have taken a biology class. Or Latin. -because once you translate into English, those become English terminology with English meaning. I'll give you an example-- orthopaedics....

• ορθοπεδική

ortho-, straight + -paes, child


-in English- orthopedics, but directly from the Greek meaning it's the practice of straightening a child. Latin- straightening a foot.


When reading Galatian's 2 in verse 14 it uses the Greek word, but the translators don't translate it into English as orthopaedics-- that would be silly. That's not what the verse is referring to--- Paul isn't referencing bone defects. They should have explained this in your Greek class, but of course it's inconvenient for you here where you'd like to insert your own meaning. Once you put it into English, you bind yourself to the English meaning.

 

[Mr E]

Exactly what I was thinking!

Can you be honest? Can you admit it's a serious problem?

Even just for a minute? Can you engage in a little critical thinking, and apply some logic? That's called intellectual honesty. Many people consider themselves to be honest, yet they are quite willing to twist things for their own purposes without it even pinging their heart.

Consider this--

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.... ...Mattan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary (for @marks (the book of the genesis of Jesus)

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli....


This isn't new info, but both accounts purport to be the genealogy of Jesus Christ right back to King David, and beyond.

In Matthew Jacob begat Joseph. In Luke, he didn't. Matthew is explicit. Yet it differs from Luke's account

Do you know what it means when they put certain parts in parentheses? I'm sure you do.

It means they added that part, because they couldn't be sure it was in the original text. Without that insertion it reads very clearly-- Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of.....

The two accounts don't match at the start and the two accounts don't follow the same line back to David. It's very convenient to pull a rabbit out of the hat and say---- Oh, well one is the genealogy of Mary, and Mary was an heiress, and Mary's Dad-Heli probably adopted Joseph as a son... It's even more made-up than what they insert in parentheses. Why not add (through adoption) in parentheses? Why not say-- this is Mary's family history? Of course, they don't indicate anything like that. It's fabricated.

An honest person would admit that one of them is inaccurate.