Virgin birth

adamd164

Hello, I'm a Biology undergraduate in UCC. I'd like to ask the members of this forum a question: do you believe in the virgin birth? If so, how can you reconcile this with its biological impossibility? Whilst, in some exceptional instances, it is possible for a female to self fertilise, it is strictly impossible for her to conceive a male. A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

Many regards, and pleasant new year,
Adam

Hello_everybody

Hi adam,

what a daring and interesting post!

Yes, I do believe in the virgin birth, having being brainwashed as a kid by the church and school.

And it's obviously not a biological impossibility since it actually did happen according to the bible.

if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

Yes, I would think the idea of a virgin birth is absolute lunacy, but as I said, the brainwashing I have undergone since my early years has led me to believe that the virgin birth is fact.

SubjectSean

There's a film from Canada, I can't remember the name of it, but in the opening sequence a Greek farmer is pleasuring himself in close proximity to a case of his finest tomatoes. His seed, as it were, 'contaminates' the tomatoes and they are shipped off with great speed to a Canadian marketplace. Here a woman, the mother of the films central character, falls 'awkwardly' on the said crate of tomatoes and is impregnated. Voila - a virgin birth.

The Jews say Jesus and his twin brother were the sons of a Roman soldier named Pandeira. All I know is that the prophecy of the Messiah in the Septuagint wherein it specifies he is to be born of a virgin, is actually a mistranslation from the original Hebrew. AFAIK what the passage originally read was 'young woman' and the story we see in the NT is a twisting of the facts in order to fit a mis-percieved prophecy.

DublinWriter

adamd164 wrote: »

you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

I think that the whole virgin-birth phenomenon is the least arduous anti-science leap of faith that Catholics only (correct me if I'm wrong) have to make.

The central tenant of all Christian belief is in the resurrection, i.e. Jesus springing back to life, as a metaphor for the principle of redemption and eternal life.

All faith is basically belief with empirical proof.

adamd164

I agree, DublinWriter, but the Virgin Birth is one which fascinates me, for some reason.

SubjectSean, that example you gave isn't obviously a true virgin birth. My question was intended to be "do you believe that a female gave birth to a male child without a male member of the same species fertilising her egg?"

Hello_everybody, I sure am glad I managed to escape such impressings upon my young, well, impressionable mind. There are people who can help, don't give up hope just yet.

The quaint surroundings of this forum truly are intellectually stimulating; it's interesting to educate oneself on methods of indoctrination and how far they can be taken before people step back and think to themselves "hold on, this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?!". Thanks for taking the time to reply.

PDN

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think that the whole virgin-birth phenomenon is the least arduous anti-science leap of faith that Catholics only (correct me if I'm wrong) have to make.

OK, consider yourself corrected. All major Christian churches believe in the virgin birth.

As to the OP, "biological impossibility" = a miracle, which is hardly difficult to accept if you believe in an omnipotent God.

And no, the only brainwashing I received at a young age was that of my atheist upbringing. I made a reasoned choice to accept the virgin birth as an adult.

SubjectSean

adamd164 wrote: »

SubjectSean, that example you gave isn't obviously a true virgin birth. My question was intended to be "do you believe that a female gave birth to a male child without a male member of the same species fertilising her egg?"

And my answer is in effect 'No I don't believe' but I can certainly see ways that such a story may have come about. IMO the whole Mary thing is an irrelevance. As far as I care Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus and not how how his mother came to be pregnant or how he died.

JimiTime

SubjectSean wrote: »

And my answer is in effect 'No I don't believe' but I can certainly see ways that such a story may have come about. IMO the whole Mary thing is an irrelevance. As far as I care Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus and not how how his mother came to be pregnant or how he died.

From this post and others, would I be right in thinking that Jesus to you was just a guy that came with good advice?

kelly1

adamd164 wrote: »

Hello, I'm a Biology undergraduate in UCC. I'd like to ask the members of this forum a question: do you believe in the virgin birth?

Yes, absolutely.

adamd164 wrote: »

If so, how can you reconcile this with its biological impossibility? Whilst, in some exceptional instances, it is possible for a female to self fertilise, it is strictly impossible for her to conceive a male.

Of course it's a biological impossilbilty but surely it's a simple feat for Almighty God.

adamd164 wrote: »

A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

I don't like the word indoctinate because of it's negative connotations. Growing up I received a poor religious education or least it seems that way or maybe I just wasn't listening. What I know now about my faith I learnt mostly in the past five years. What I do believe is that the world is generally cynical about spiritual matters and more so about things that sound too good to be true e.g. Heaven, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, the Virgin Birth etc.

Many regards, and pleasant new year,
Adam

Same to you too!

God bless,
Noel.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Always find people asking this funny, I mean, if you believe God created the earth, you're hardly going to have issue with him sending his son through a virgin.

Fanny Cradock

adamd164 wrote: »

A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

As has been pointed out adamd164, if you believe in an omnipotent God then there should be no problem accepting the virgin birth. It's that simple, really. But to answer your questions. Firstly, no, I don't consider myself a lunatic. Secondly, no, I don't think it all a load of bollocks. If you are truly interested in garnering a Christian response on this topic (rather than simply putting forth loaded questions) it might be an idea to dispense with your assumption that all Christians have been indoctrinated from childhood.

Son Goku

Although an interesting question is, whose genetics would Jesus have? Would he be a Jew racially for example?

philologos

Adam not that I appreciate the tone of your question, I will do the best I can to oblige you.

adamd164 wrote:

do you believe in the virgin birth? If so, how can you reconcile this with its biological impossibility?

Yes, I as most Christians believe in the Virgin Birth? However the second part of your question utterly stumps me a bit. I'll let you know why it stumps me. If the creation narrative is true (I know that is quite a leap, but I believe that too) surely the Lord created the world with all it's physical, chemical, and biological attributes. Surely if He created the world with this attributes, He would know how to alter them with His power. Surely they are also His creation. I hope that is an adequte explanation.

adamd164 wrote:

A further question I'd put to you is this: do you honestly believe that, if you hadn't been indoctrined at a young age, looking now impartially at the situation, you wouldn't consider yourself a total and utter lunatic for believing this?

If you don't mind me stating Adam, you are quite the fan of what I would describe as the "loaded statement". You assume (wrongly, although unlike you I am open for discussion on this) when you come to this forum, that all Christians have not rationally thought about their faith and the implications it would have for them. We are told that we should expect persecution and bigotry at some point in our lifetime by Christ.

Just even assuming that we were indoctrinated. It is the right of the parent to bring up their children in a particular faith. Yes parents leave a lasting influence on their children in a good few cases by bringing them up in faith. May I also remind you that parents leave a lasting influence on children by not bringing them up in faith? They are equal in my eyes, and I definetely wouldn't see it as "indoctrination".

To answer your question Adam, I was not particularly indoctrinated. I was brought to church frequently as a child. Yes I will not deny that. However, I never really understood the Christian faith, until I decided that I would sit down and read the Bible, start to finish. This has been the best thing I have ever done. I'm now 18, closer to God than I've ever been in my life, through work of my own, and I'm even starting to study the theologies behind it now.

To answer the latter part of your question, Adam. No I would not consider myself to be a lunatic. Infact I would consider it lunacy not to follow the way of Christ as it's in the ultimate interest of mankind that everyone do so. I sincerely hope that He will cleanse you of your arrogance and closedmindedness, even if you are a biology undergraduate. Surely being an skeptic, (whatever you are, not to jump to conclusions), doesn't revoke the prerequisite of discussion, that is manners.

Now Son Goku, I found your post rather interesting. So I think I might tackle that next if you don't mind

Son Goku wrote:

Although an interesting question is, whose genetics would Jesus have? Would he be a Jew racially for example?

Although God is indeed in mans image according to Genesis. Man is of many different racial groups, and the Lord created all of these racial groups. So I would easily say that Jesus would not have been affected genetically by God really if He is indeed God Incarnate in the Christian theological point of view. So I would say that Jesus was Jewish, as His mother was. Just from running down the general thought on the plan. I'm not entirely certain, not sure if any Christian could give a 100% foolproof answer on it.

SubjectSean

JimiTime wrote: »

From this post and others, would I be right in thinking that Jesus to you was just a guy that came with good advice?

Not at all Jimi, a man in tune with God is how I have him.

SubjectSean

Son Goku wrote: »

Although an interesting question is, whose genetics would Jesus have? Would he be a Jew racially for example?

Yes of the tribe of Judah and a Jew by religion also (unlike most of his followers)

SubjectSean

Jakkass wrote: »

Although God is indeed in mans image according to Genesis. Man is of many different racial groups, and the Lord created all of these racial groups.

Nope God created one human race of differing ethnicities. "Racial groups" are the devils invention.

ryoishin

I do believe in the virgin birth, for many reasons that im not bothered about getting into. Why say it in the text if its not what Scripture wanted it to say as it cozs so many problems it would have been easier for the author to leave it out so it must of been part of the belief of the early church. I dont agree with the arguement about the origional word meaning young woman as the word (cant remember what it was) did mean this but in the sense of "untouched young woman".

Islam also believes in the virginity of Mary.

And we re not just dealing with the biological in regard to Christs conception.

happy new year

Asiaprod

adamd164 wrote: »

The quaint surroundings of this forum truly are intellectually stimulating; it's interesting to educate oneself on methods of indoctrination and how far they can be taken before people step back and think to themselves "hold on, this is a load of bollocks, isn't it?!". Thanks for taking the time to reply.

My pleasure, and in reply, do take time out to read the Charter. You are coming very close to breaking it.
Asia

philologos

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes of the tribe of Judah and a Jew by religion also (unlike most of his followers)

Actually good point.

Mary passed on her Jewish lineage to Jesus, as it passes through the mother.

SubjectSean wrote:

Nope God created one human race of differing ethnicities. "Racial groups" are the devils invention.

Apologies "ethnicities" then.... You got the general jist.

daiixi

SubjectSean wrote: »

The Jews say Jesus and his twin brother were the sons of a Roman soldier named Pandeira. All I know is that the prophecy of the Messiah in the Septuagint wherein it specifies he is to be born of a virgin, is actually a mistranslation from the original Hebrew. AFAIK what the passage originally read was 'young woman' and the story we see in the NT is a twisting of the facts in order to fit a mis-percieved prophecy.

I can't remember where the idea came from but I am of the impression that the term "virgin" used to refer to any woman who hadn't given birth before and as Jesus was Mary's first child it was a virgin birth. Has anyone else heard of this?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Although God is indeed in mans image according to Genesis. Man is of many different racial groups, and the Lord created all of these racial groups. So I would easily say that Jesus would not have been affected genetically by God really if He is indeed God Incarnate in the Christian theological point of view. So I would say that Jesus was Jewish, as His mother was. Just from running down the general thought on the plan. I'm not entirely certain, not sure if any Christian could give a 100% foolproof answer on it.

I think what Son is asking is where did the other half of Jesus' genetic material come from?

Did God just make it up? Did he take Joseph's?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what Son is asking is where did the other half of Jesus' genetic material come from?

Did God just make it up? Did he take Joseph's?

How would anyone know that?

Why would anyone care?

Since He didn't pass His genetic material on to anyone, why would it matter?

Son Goku

PDN wrote: »

How would anyone know that?

Why would anyone care?

Since He didn't pass His genetic material on to anyone, why would it matter?

You're a funny fella. It's just an idle question, not some attempt to disprove Jesus or anything. Obviously Jackass found it interesting. You can't really answer it, but it's interesting to wonder.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what Son is asking is where did the other half of Jesus' genetic material come from?

Did God just make it up? Did he take Joseph's?

It came from God. Therefore Jesus was God and man.

But you probably don't want to know this.:rolleyes:

SubjectSean

God does not have chromosomes IMO. If It did It would be a creature.

philologos

Son Goku wrote: »

You're a funny fella. It's just an idle question, not some attempt to disprove Jesus or anything. Obviously Jackass found it interesting. You can't really answer it, but it's interesting to wonder.

Indeed. It's interesting to think about. I have a theory about it, from just my thought about the scriptures. People could come up with hundreds of different views. Perhaps it is safer not to say which is right or wrong. I cannot say that it's 100% as reliable as anything from the scriptures obviously. Just what I think

SubjectSean wrote:

God does not have chromosomes IMO. If It did It would be a creature.

Interesting? Where does it say that. If God created the world with all it's biological confines surely He could have created sufficent chromosones for Jesus. However this is just speculation.

What Christians understand is that Jesus was far far more than human, to say that he was even born of the same genetic confines as the rest of us is rather difficult considering that He existed before He was born. (John 1) He was not a mortal. Therefore it's difficult to judge his existence from a mortals point of view.

SubjectSean

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting? Where does it say that. If God created the world with all it's biological confines surely He could have created sufficent chromosones for Jesus. However this is just speculation..

I just don't think God could possibly encode Itself within the limited scope of half the chromosomes of one species. However this too is mere speculation

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It came from God. Therefore Jesus was God and man.

Jesus was God because God created his chromosomes? Not sure that is correct, I don't think chromosomes can make someone a deity.

But as Son says, its just idle speculation. I suppose I would be more interested in whether or not Christians actually think about these things.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

He was not a mortal. Therefore it's difficult to judge his existence from a mortals point of view.

That is kinda the heart of the question.

What was Jesus made of, did his body function as a normal human body functions. Did he have genetic mutations that are found in all life (on average a human has 60 mutations from their parents base DNA), did he suffer from genetic diseases or conditions. Was he bald? Did he have bad eye sight. Did he have perfect eye sight (itself being unusual). Did he have hair feet?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Did he have hair feet?

I think His feet were probably composed of flesh and bones rather than hair. Otherwise the nails would not have held Him to the cross very well.

philologos

SubjectSean wrote:

Roman soldier named Pandeira. All I know is that the prophecy of the Messiah in the Septuagint wherein it specifies he is to be born of a virgin, is actually a mistranslation from the original Hebrew. AFAIK what the passage originally read was 'young woman' and the story we see in the NT is a twisting of the facts in order to fit a mis-percieved prophecy.

It says "young woman". Just wondering... do you not think that it is possible for a young woman to be also a virgin. That isn't a twisting of facts.

SubjectSean

Jakkass wrote: »

It says "young woman". Just wondering... do you not think that it is possible for a young woman to be also a virgin. That isn't a twisting of facts.

Yes that is possible I am sure but I'm fairly certain that virgins can't give birth. I also think that if God can't get through to us without entirely suspending the nature of Its creation then It didn't think things through very well concerning our credulity. This too I find unlikely. I'm far more inclined to think the story was twisted to fit facts on the back of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint mis-translation. I don't need God to do party tricks, it's enough of a miricle that we're here at all.

Oafley Jones

'Virgin Birth' is not unique to christianity. Indeed the term used to refer to a girl given birth before she had her first period. 'Virgin birth' does not preclude sexual activity.

philologos

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes that is possible I am sure but I'm fairly certain that virgins can't give birth. I also think that if God can't get through to us without entirely suspending the nature of Its creation then It didn't think things through very well concerning our credulity. This too I find unlikely. I'm far more inclined to think the story was twisted to fit facts on the back of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint mis-translation. I don't need God to do party tricks, it's enough of a miricle that we're here at all.

The whole lot regardless of what language is a bit incredible or unlikely to you that's fair enough.

The facts are the statement says "A young woman will give birth", is that true?

Virgins can't give birth, unless by divine intervention, that is the Christian point. So how if you believe the Christian version, is Isaiah 7:14 rendered false? The clear cut answer is that it isn't. Infact it's totally coherent with the parameters of the Virgin Birth.

SubjectSean

Jakkass wrote: »

The whole lot regardless of what language is a bit incredible or unlikely to you that's fair enough.

The facts are the statement says "A young woman will give birth", is that true?

Yes AFAIK in the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 reads "A young woman" but in the Septuagint we have "Virgin". Now as I have said I take this to indicate a degree of twisting the story to fit the facts. However I only see things this way because there are other examples in the NT where this 'twist-to-fit' has occurred. For instance Matthew 21 has Jesus riding both a donkey and a colt (two creatures) similtaneously. This stupidity, like the virgin birth, hinges on the evangelists inability to understand the original prophecy "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". The facts have clearly been changed to fit the misunderstanding unless of course you happen to believe that Jesus was a circus performer.

Jakkass wrote: »

Virgins can't give birth, unless by divine intervention, that is the Christian point. So how if you believe the Christian version, is Isaiah 7:14 rendered false? The clear cut answer is that it isn't. Infact it's totally coherent with the parameters of the Virgin Birth.

It is true that Isaiah is not rendered false by the Christian interpretation however given the facts it seems highly likely that this interpretation hinges on mis-translation of the Jewish scripture rather than any lack of clarity on the part of the prophet.

philologos

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes AFAIK in the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 reads "A young woman" but in the Septuagint we have "Virgin". Now as I have said I take this to indicate a degree of twisting the story to fit the facts. However I only see things this way because there are other examples in the NT where this 'twist-to-fit' has occurred. For instance Matthew 21 has Jesus riding both a donkey and a colt (two creatures) similtaneously. This stupidity, like the virgin birth, hinges on the evangelists inability to understand the original prophecy "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". The facts have clearly been changed to fit the misunderstanding unless of course you happen to believe that Jesus was a circus performer.

Come on Sean let's be honest here. It isn't the only part by which you allege that "twist to fit" has occurred. Do you have any sources that can conclusively prove that this has happened?

Also on the donkeys, you should read this explanation. It's rather good:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark11_2.htm

If you say that they have clearly been changed, I believe the onus is on you to prove that. So far there has been nothing of conclusive proof.

SubjectSean wrote:

It is true that Isaiah is not rendered false by the Christian interpretation however given the facts it seems highly likely that this interpretation hinges on mis-translation of the Jewish scripture rather than any lack of clarity on the part of the prophet.

Give me reason why it is highly likely. I don't understand this. It seems highly likely to you perhaps.

davem2007

As a child your religion is dictated by the people who bring you up, I presume that is fair to say.
[FONT=&quot]Have a look at this, it’s on You Tube and type in ZEITGEIST[/FONT]

ShoulderChip

That is an excellent video davem2007,
everyone should watch it.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com

philologos

oh my my. Not Zeitgeist again. Search this forum for Zeitgeist, Horus or Mithras and you will find a lot of threads on it.

davem2007

Jakkass

Sometimes the truth hurts, how many VERGIN BIRTHS have been noted in history.
Zeitgeist will open many eyes.

philologos

davem2007 wrote: »

Jakkass

Sometimes the truth hurts, how many VERGIN BIRTHS have been noted in history.
Zeitgeist will open many eyes.

Search the forum. You will see how many times this has been discussed.

MooseJam

so virgin birth is just a miss-translation, if it is then why does anybody believe it ?

philologos

It's a mistranslation in the prophesy, not in the New Testament actual account of it. I still haven't found any explanation why a young woman could not be a virgin.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a mistranslation in the prophesy, not in the New Testament actual account of it. I still haven't found any explanation why a young woman could not be a virgin.

Quite correct, the New Testament plainly says that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant and remained so until the child was born.

I also doubt whether the Isiah prophecy is mistranslated. The whole point of the prophecy was that this would be a miraculous sign. I don't think a young woman giving birth is really very miraculous. So, I think there is a fair argument to be made that the translators of the Septuagint translated the word very well and were faithful to the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

SubjectSean

Jakkass wrote: »

Come on Sean let's be honest here. It isn't the only part by which you allege that "twist to fit" has occurred.

Indeed but I don't think I was being dishonest, I said explicitly that I believe there are 'other examples' in the NT where this 'twist-to-fit' has occurred

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you have any sources that can conclusively prove that this has happened?

No but by the same token it would be just as hard to conclusively prove that this had not happened. It was all so long ago. I have only my rationality, some knowledge of human behavoiur and the belief that God is pure Logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also on the donkeys, you should read this explanation. It's rather good:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark11_2.htm

Hmmm I disagree it focuses on the fact that some people quibble over an apparent contadiction between the synoptics about the number of beasts of burden involved. It does not address the point that Matthew sits Jesus astride both animals at the same time. It is this that is the square peg in a round hole and Zechariah 9:9 is the hammer that drove it there.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you say that they have clearly been changed, I believe the onus is on you to prove that. So far there has been nothing of conclusive proof.

Give me reason why it is highly likely. I don't understand this. It seems highly likely to you perhaps.

I can prove nothing to you conclusively unless we were actually stood there long ago to see Jesus NOT sprawled out with his legs akimbo across two animals of differing heights and trying to steer them towards Jerusalem. However the sheer lunacy of this vista should be proof enough.

I've lived with people who have a highly developed belief in the supernatural. People who believe very strongly in good and malign spirits and in witches and sorcerers. Time and time again I have seen happenings that were not at all supernatural become supernatural in the telling. If they are written down do they become true? My God knows that I know this and that I look at the story the people left us of Jesus with this fact in my heart. IMO long ago people needed miracles to believe, but now we have science to look at the creation in depth, the beauty and wonder of it is all the miracle we need.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

I also doubt whether the Isiah prophecy is mistranslated. The whole point of the prophecy was that this would be a miraculous sign. I don't think a young woman giving birth is really very miraculous. So, I think there is a fair argument to be made that the translators of the Septuagint translated the word very well and were faithful to the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

Have to say I disagree, this came up before and from what I can gather, going by the Jewish translation from the Herbrew which I imagine is the most pertinent the translation favours 'young woman'.

24tn (7:14) Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in

connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest

Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place

over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the

doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here,

äîìò, (‘almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does

not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the

corresponding masculine noun, íìò (‘elem), “young man”; cf. 1 Sam.17:56; 20:22).

The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins.

The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be

translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of

Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century B.C., however,

rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word parqenoz (parthenos),

which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also

appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning

of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term

parqenoz (parthenos) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has

taken place.

from

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

SubjectSean

PDN wrote: »

I don't think a young woman giving birth is really very miraculous. .

Here we disagree PDN. Quarks to stars to stardust to humans. Show me how it's done

PDN

SubjectSean wrote: »

It does not address the point that Matthew sits Jesus astride both animals at the same time.

Actually Matthew doesn't - so maybe it is you who are twisting and fitting?

Matthew's words are: "They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them." This could mean one of three things.

a) The second 'them' may well refer to the clothes, not to the donkey and the ass. In this case Matthew is simply saying that they put clothes on the backs of the animals and Jesus sat on the clothes.

b) The second 'them' may indeed refer to the donkey and the ass, but Matthew does not say that Jesus sat astride them both at the same time. It is perfectly plausible that he rode the donkey part of the way and then completed the journey on the colt.

c) A third possibility is that some form of litter or carriage was balanced on both animals, so that they worked in tandem or side-by-side.

SubjectSean

PDN wrote: »

Actually Matthew doesn't - so maybe it is you who are twisting and fitting?

Matthew's words are: "They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them." This could mean one of three things.

I admit the three things you mention but find in favour of the fourth which you fail to mention. Namely that the author of Matthew was trying his utmost to make the story of Jesus fit with the Jewish prophecies of the Messiah.

Zechariah 9:9 YLT

"Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, Lo, thy King doth come to thee, Righteous -- and saved is He, Afflicted -- and riding on an ass, And on a colt -- a son of she-asses."

It seems fairly conclusive to my mind that the author of Matthew has mistken the Hebrew literaray device of double emphasis for two separate creatures and has compounded the error by having Jesus ride them both at once. I do however recognise that we are unlikely to agree over this

philologos

The mother generally was attached to the colt as the colt is rather weak. That's what the link I gave anyway.

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

Quite correct, the New Testament plainly says that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant and remained so until the child was born.

who wrote it and how do they know she was a virgin ? was she given a gynecological exam ?