Early Evangelism

As I understand it, the law was quite strict with regard to things like adultery and it seems reasonable to suppose that Joseph must have suspected adultery when he found out that Mary was pregnant.

At that point, her life was physically in danger as was that of her unborn child.

Joseph relented however and appears to have acted as if he was the father of Jesus.

So, when Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem, it seems likely that they would have had to say that they had been married for longer than they had been, in order to avoid the social problems alluded to by hivizman.

Obviously there were no Christians at that time to understand the idea of a 'virgin birth' and I would imagine that to claim to have been inseminated by God Himself and carrying God's child would have been very dangerous for Mary as she would risk being accused of blasphemy. Is that right?

What I'm wondering is, when would it have been safe for the idea of The Immaculate Conception to be put forward and how did it first come to be known that Mary became pregnant before she was married?

PDN wrote: »

You are confusing the doctrine of the virgin birth (that Mary miraculously conceived Christ while remaining a virgin - a belief common to all major strands of Christianity) and the Immaculate Conception (a specifically Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was herself conceived without original sin, albeit by normal sexual intercourse between her parents).

I get the difference between the two; it seems that both the 'Immaculate Conception' and the claim to have been inseminated by God would have been treated as blasphemy though.

What I can't understand is how did Matthew and Luke (of the Gospels) find out about these things. I mean, if Jesus was being accused of blasphemy by speaking of God as His 'father' then Mary could have been implicated too had she made the same claim. In fact, Mary might have been considered more culpable in that it may have been thought that it was she who had put the idea into Jesus' head in the first place.

I'm speaking from the point of view of the authorities of that time.

Surely any inquiry into Jesus' 'blasphemy' would have had to investigate Mary too; How could Mary support the claim of her son and not be put to death?

I just get the impression that the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth were concepts that were 'bolted on' to the story of Jesus, probably in order to increase its credibility but somehow, it seems to do the opposite.

hivizman wrote: »

The other reading of the question is: irrespective of any command from God, did Mary and Joseph have to keep the fact that Mary was carrying a child who was not Joseph's a secret because otherwise either or both of them would have suffered social problems (ranging from shame to ostracism)?

The clue is, I think, in Matthew 1:19: "Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly." This implies that, if the fact that Mary's child was not Joseph's had become public knowledge, Mary would have faced severe social sanctions. The implication is that Joseph, probably in collusion with Mary's parents, was planning to have her sent away so that his neighbours would not become aware of Mary's "shame".

So, overall, the answer to the question is, I believe, "yes".

Leading on from there, suppose there were others outside the family who knew of Mary's condition and its significance; Neither Mary nor Joseph may have been aware of these 'others' until Jesus was about twelve.

Is it feasible that Jesus could have been secretly residing with the priests of His parent's hometown until He emerged again at thirty or so?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There was no Christianity to be scuppered. It didn't exist.

Well, Jesusism then, whatever label you would like to apply to the 'club' that was forming around Jesus.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

From the perspective of the ruling powers, when Jesus wasn't making outrageous claims about himself, he was causing trouble at the temples, denouncing the Pharisees and Sadducees in public and was generally undermining the religious order at every opportunity. "Cut the head off and the body dies" would seem like perfectly reasonable axiom to work off when dealing with a rabble rouser and his followers.

Yes and Jesus was crucified as a criminal in the eyes of the law. But who 'knew' that it was the Messiah that they called to be crucified; who knew that the crucifixion was the penultimate step in fulfilling prophecy?

Don't you wonder? From what I can tell of the trial of Jesus, He doesn't seem to be exactly submitting to execution even though He had spoken of His ressurrection. He is quite careful about what He says and makes it very difficult to make a case against Him; what if Jesus had won the case?

Well, all bets would be off, wouldn't they?

Now, this is interesting; who stood to lose most, Jesus or the Sanhedrin?

Jesus would fail to fulfil prophecy and could be denounced for doing so, which would have been a satisfactory outcome for the Sanhedrin if they were looking to discredit Him and who believed that Jesus is not the Messiah of the prophecy.

If Jesus was simply a charismatic upstart who claimed to be the Messiah, the Sanhedrin agenda would have been better served either by letting Him live or by insuring against the possibility of ressurection!

So, getting back to the OP, not only did they have to keep the circumstances of Jesus' conception under wraps, Mary and Joseph may not have even been aware of the details of the prophecy and I don't think that there is any suggestion that Jesus' religious knowledge came from His parents.

I was considering the idea that between the ages of twelve to thirty, Jesus was 'learning' to be a Messiah; he may have travelled to other countries and acquired knowledge of say, pain-management techniques for example and perhaps the ones who assisted Him through those times, Joseph of Arimathea being such a man perhaps, were more closely connected to the Sanhedrin than to the Christian (or whatever 'club' we can call it) cause.

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the crucifixion of Christ and His subsequent ressurection served two purposes; it laid the foundation for the beginnig of Christianity and it fulfilled a prophecy that served the agenda of the Sanhedrin.

How is that possible; did the Sanhedrin expect to kick off a new religion that would have 'one-third of the world's population' signed up to it?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you propose that anyone would verify that Mary was a virgin? The Gospels aren't an exhaustive record of everything Jesus said and did. Ultimately you either accept the accounts of the virgin birth or you don't.

That's my point, you can't. Once Mary had given birth there would be no possibility of her passing a 'virgin test' and since it was kept secret by Mary and Joseph up to that point there is no evidence whatsoever one way or the other. However, maybe someone else did know and maybe that someone was part of the Sanhedrin.

This is plausable; remember Elizabeth? Mary shared her Joy with her; they were close and I reckon that she could attest to the question of Mary's virginity. Maybe Elizabeth told someone?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I fail to see the point of this thread.

And now?

All I'm trying to do is make sense of the reasoning behind the Bible and in order to do that, one has to deal with the things that don't make sense.

hivizman wrote: »

I think that an application of Occam's razor is called for here. Of course, it is possible that there were others keeping track of Jesus, people of whom we have no record and who do not appear to have intervened in any event, but there is no need to hypothesise such trackers to explain anything, so it's more rational not to hypothesise them.

Normally I would agree but the application of Occam's razor cannot lead us to a conclusion that requires some kind of magic. If one thing is attributable to magic then so can other things.

For instance, if someone writes the phrase, "I pray for death." and leaves it at the scene of a murder, Occam's razor would indicate that God had answered the murder victim's prayers. That would be the simplest explanation but an investigation will follow and as far as I know, God has never been accepted, except in the Bible, to have caused death by either answering the prayer of a victim or by compelling a person to kill another.

It seems to me that not only is it possible that unknown actors played a part in the fulfilment of prophecy, it is likely; and that this is evidenced by Jesus' trial.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Attempting to tease out motives that aren't apparent in the text is rather futile. Similarly, imposing an "ought" upon the participants in the story ("they ought to have behaved in this way") tells us nothing about the people involved and everything about what makes you tick.

I could not disagree more.

These 'motives' as you put them can be teased out of the text. There are two distinct narratives that can be drawn from the Bible, a Christian one and a Jewish one. Christianity came about through the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy; did the Jews not expect this?

Revelations 15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

One third of the population of the world is Christian; there is an alarm-bell ringing in my head; am I one of that third and is my baby son?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The hard truth is that if all you are presenting is speculation - and it is my contention that you are - then your opinions on what the decisions people ought to have made is largely irrelevant.

I'd love to see an example of an opinion that is relevant; could you link me to one?

Why was Herod's baby massacre necessary, it was contrived?

The three 'wise' men could have told Herod that Jesus posed no danger to him, that He was nothing more than a normal child. But they didn't and the information given by them to Herod led to the massacre of all the babies of Bethlehem. Except one:

Couldn't Gabriel have saves other children as well as Jesus?

Now, the presence of that story in the Bible may be cut and dry to you but to me it looks like 'the scene is being set'.

PDN wrote: »

Or imagined into the text, as appears more likely in this case.

Imagined?

What is so difficult about this?

When Mary became pregnant with Jesus why didn't she shout it from the roof-tops? She had received word that her son was to be the Messiah and this is supported by Elizabeth's reaction; 'Mother of my Lord!'

If her status as a virgin had been verified at that point then the whole story would have had wider support; it would have become common knowledge that Mary was the Blessed Virgin.

It's quite an important detail; Immanuel is to be born of a virgin.

So, why the need for secrecy and why is there no support of this narrative outside of the Christian interpretation of the Bible?

PDN wrote: »

Any number of reasons suggest themselves. Humility? The fear that people wouldn't believe her and would stone her to death? Well-founded fear of what a homicidal King Hereod would do.

Mary was known for her piety, wasn't she? Elizabeth became pregnant at the same time too, didn't she?

Within her own community Mary would have been safe and protected and because she was an integral part of the fulfilment of prophecy, she would have been venerated by the religious leadership to whom she was quite close.

Yes, Herod was a lunatic, 'It would be better to be Herod's pig than his son', and he was probably manipulated into ordering the massacre of the children of Bethlehem.

But why? Herod's reaction to the news of Jesus' birth was predictable. Especially to three wise men. So, there is an 'announcement' that Jesus is born and that He is to be the Messiah and the hopes of all are raised, then Herod has all the children put to death. Is there any reason to think that Herod thought he had failed to kill the Messiah? I don't think so, not until much later.

And the belief that the Messiah had been murdered by Herod would have taken the pressure off Mary and Joseph. The right people knew of Jesus' importance and everyone else thought He was dead. Thusly, albeit at a high price in young lives, Mary was protected.

PDN wrote: »

And how do you suppose a modest Jewish vitgin would go about getting her virginity 'verified'?

Physicians representing the Priesthood.

PDN wrote: »

Like where? You think the enemies of Christianity would leave us a document saying, "Oh, by the way, there was this guy born of a virgin but we killed him"?

The story of Jesus is the story of the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. Of course there is a record of it.

What enemies of Christianity? As far as the Jews were concerned, Christianity was a fait accompli.

PDN wrote: »

Elizabeth became pregnant 6 months earlier - but I don't see why you think that has any relevance.

Luke 1 seems to suggest that Zechariah was quite vocal about it. He prophecied to the people with regard to what was to come to pass. And yes, I daresay that exposed them to great danger.

PDN wrote: »

No, any talk of a Messiah threatened everything that the religious leadership valued. It tended to forment rebellion and call the wrath of Rome down upon them.

And the outrage performed by Herod removed that particular danger.

PDN wrote: »

There's no reason to think that Herod thought he had succeeded to kill the Messiah either. Either way is nothing but supposition.

Are you sure?

PDN wrote: »

She wasn't protected. That's why they became asylum seekers in Egypt.

And when she came back, she and her family were 'in the clear'.

PDN wrote: »

Where, other than the New Testament, is this record?

Good question.

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. The Jews viewed Christianity as a heretical movement and did their very best to crush it.

But they didn't; by not interrogating Mary, the authorities demonstrate a lack of real intent to 'stamp out' Christianity. They could have captured all the disciples if they really wanted to but they didn't.

No, I do not think it is plausible at all that the Jews tried to prevent Christianity from becoming popular in any meaningful way.

PDN wrote: »

Then we obviously aren't discussing the same New Testament.

Yes we are. Zechariah's proclamations provided the first chance for Christianity to be circumvented; why weren't Mary, Joseph, Elisabeth and Zechariah all arrested for blasphemy?

The regious leadership were informed enough to react very early on to what was 'threatening' to unfold but according to the Bible, it is Herod who is the first to react. The Jews had no alliegances to Herod so it is not surprising that it was three foreigners who alerted him to the existence of Jesus but even here, he does something uncharacteristic; instead of having the Magi followed and thereby putting himself in the best position to either 'pay homage' or 'deal with what might become a problem later on', Herod 'patiently' awaits news from them.

Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit odd?

PDN wrote: »

No. Certainly not half as odd as some of the theories you are advancing about the Son of God enrolling for courses in pain management techniques.

Perhaps I was a little glib there but Jesus the human would have had to be trained and prepared for His role as Messiah wouldn't He? To achieve what Jesus did, a man would need a great deal of courage and a will of iron; he would have to live in the knowledge that he was to suffer beyond imagination before his quest would be complete. He would need some kind of training.

hinault wrote: »

And a belief throughout Islam also.
The Koran states that Mary (Miriam) was a virgin and that she conceived Jesus by Immaculate Conception.

"And mention in the Book, Maryam [i.e. mention, O Mohammed, in the Quran the story of Mary], when she withdrew from her family to a place facing east. She placed a screen from them; then We sent to her our angel (Jibrael, or Gabriel), and he appeared before her in the form of a man in full human form. She said:

'I seek refuge with The Most Beneficent [God] from you, if you do fear Him.' (The angel) said:

'I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.' She said:

'How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?' He (the angel) said:

'So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me: And to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (from God)', and it is a matter (already) decreed (by God).' " (Quran 19:16-21)

And who but Mary could have reported that? She would have had to be the one that announced that she was pregnant, but not to her husband, that she was still a virgin and that God had caused her to conceive.

Who would believe her and why should they?

Wouldn't Mary be courting death by making such a claim; she could have been stoned to death before the wedding ceremony had even taken place?

Is the virgin birth supoosed to make some kind of sense, particularly in a historical context? To me it doesn't and I wonder why that is. The story only works if you don't question it too closely.