Logical Question about "Virgin Birth"?

Question

Follow me here: A friend and I were discussing religion. Yeah, a slow night here. Anyway, knowing what we know today about the laws of today and the past, in the middle east, and how women were treated, wouldn't the logical explanation be that Mary had sex, got pregnant, was afraid to tell her parents (for surely she would be stoned to death), told them she didn't know how it happened, they claimed in must've been a "virgin" birth, pawned her off on Joseph and the story escalated from there.

What do you think? Doesn't that make sense?

This is not meant to be disrespectful, just an honest question of how things may have happened from a logical perspective. (In other words, a question regarding an opinion).

Please share your thoughts.

I said it wasn't meant to be offensive. It was merely a conversation that I was having with a friend of mine. I thought I would share the opinion, albeit not my opinion. Those who know me know what my opinion is.

DAVE777: What about "Love one another as I have loved you." When Jesus spoke those words, I believe he meant everyone, not just who deem as being worthy. Hell is for hypocrits too, see you there!

Oh, and the avatar is not "nekkid" as you put it, it is wearing what is equal to a bathing suit.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to all those wonderful answers (the ones without the nasty undertones). See, I have nothing to draw from here and I was curious. Thanks again for making it clearer for me. I only wanted to understand it.

NORELIEF: Major flaw in your answer, the 12 apostles DID NOT eyewitness the resurrection, if you remember, it was Mary and one of the apostles, I believe Paul (aka Peter), along with Mary Magdeline. Judas Ascariat hung himself in the garden (so that alone made 11). I do read.

Answer 1

Imagine if you will this scenario. Mary was raped by a roman soldier. Her family would have no legal recourse and if the paternity ever got out it would bring shame on the whole family. Joseph who would have married her anyway was enlisted to give the baby an acceptable daddy.

Alternately It's been said that that whole virgin birth thing was tacked on to the story decades or centuries later for political reasons.

Yet it could have happened as stated in the bible (with or without divine intervention)

In cases of parthenogenesis (virgin birth), an ovum starts to divide by itself without fertilization, producing an embryo in which the paternal chromosomes may be replaced by a duplication of maternal ones. This asexual reproductive method is rare among warm-blooded vertebrates but more common among invertebrates. Pathological parthenogenesis has been observed in higher animals, such as the frog, fowl, and certain mammals. Parthenogenesis usually gives rise to female offspring or sometimes an abnormal male.

Of Course you realize the Greco-roman gods were doing this sort of thing (knocking up mortals) for centuries?

Answer 2

I find a few flaws in your "logical perspective". Here goes:

1. You seem to assume that with a strict religious belief (such as Judaism) comes a complete gullibility or perhaps total ignorance of human reproduction. NO, it DOES NOT make sense to "make up" a story of a divine birth in First Century Judea, at least not among Jews. The Jews of that time KNEW WHERE BABIES CAME FROM. No mystery there. There would be no logical impetus for making up a wild story, especially one that would be immediately dismissed by the audience at hand.

If a lie was going to be used as a cover-up, it would have been a believeable one: either Joseph took his marriage rights early, or Mary was raped by a Roman Soldier (which occupied the country at the time). Mary was engaged to Joseph at the time of her conception, and immediately into her first trimester, took a three-month trip out of town. Either story would have been plausible, and would have resulted in no punishment for Mary. (Joseph, however, could have been whipped.)

2. You forget Mary and Joseph's relational state at the time: they were already engaged! The engagement came first, and the conception came second. Joseph's own reaction to a "virgin conception" is very telling: he KNEW he wasn't the baby's father, but was willing to quitely "break up" with Mary (instead of having her killed). It is possible he considered Mary a rape victim, and traumatized by her attack.

Later in life, everybody assumes that Jesus is Joseph's natural son. It seems he willingly took the blame, even though he was innocent. Something changed his mind.

3. The religious culture of Judea would not support a "demigod pregnancy" story. The various pagan nations had plenty of them (due to their promiscuous religious lifestyle), but this was NOT the prevailing culture in Judea. The setting for this proposition is all wrong. A girl might have pulled off this story in Rome, Greece, Persia, or Egypt, but not in Judea. A girl claiming such a story in Judea would have been GUARANTEED a stoning: for blasphemy!

4. From a logical perspective, "insane" stories do not work as cover-ups. LOGICAL, SENSIBLE stories work. The best lies contain at least 75% truth.

Which would be believed: that you were late for work because 1. your car broke down, or 2. because you were kidnapped by aliens? If you were going to lie about it, would you go with the "sensible" story, or the weirdo one that would be disregarded right away?

Answer 3

That is old hat. There is a logic of love to the virginal conception since with a human father Jesus would have had not just 2 natures(divine and human) but 2 separate persons.
If Jesus is God-Made-Man then the virginal conception and the Resurrection and the Ascention and Real Presence in the Eucharist and the 2nd Coming make sense and fit together.

Answer 4

That certainly could be a logical explanation for the birth, if it ever occured. I also once wayched the History channel about the "Virgin Birth." It stated some women actually are born with two x's and one Y chromosome.
Two XX's make you a girl typically
One X and one Y makes you a boy.
So, these "girls" are something of a genetic anomaly and a rare few percentage of those girls have actually gotten pregnant without having sex(supposedly).

Answer 5

This is quite logical, it could be she had sex with Joseph. At the time her options were; a- get stoned to death b- merry Joesph AND have sex with him in front of the elders c- come up with a better story. Apparently c is an answer. Alternatively, it is possible to conceive without the hymen being broken with "naked play", it just doesn't happen often.

Answer 6

Your explanation would make sense to a person who does not understand that at the time of Mary and Joseph, the law stated that Joseph could have had Mary put to death or sent out of the area to have her child elsewhere. Joseph was about to send Mary away when the Angel told him what the truth was. Joseph accepted the message from the Angel and took Mary as his wife.

Answer 7

Close, but not exactly. She was betrothed to Joseph before she became pregnant. It's kind of like being pre-married. He had certain rights and expectations at that point.

Her being pregnant, then, was an embarrassment to him since it made it look like he was cuckolded. Joseph was going to abandon her but an angel intervened to talk him into staying, according to the story, IIRC.

Still, the story was probably tacked on at some later time to to link Jesus to the prophecies of a messiah.

Answer 8

Well, that is what people DID think back then. People weren't stupid or gullible in the ancient days, they just wore robes and sandals.

Either it happened, or it didn't. Basically, the whole fact or fiction thing hinges on the resurrection. Did He come to life? Well, all 12 of the disciples who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection were so convinced that they went to their deaths as martyrs....if it were a lie, would they have been so adamant as to die for it? Clearly there were many, many eyewitnesses who claimed that He was alive...the historian Flavius Josephus even mentions it.

Answer 9

in the game of chess, there are certain pieces that have more power than others, and can "veto" a smaller piece's move. By the same token, a pawn can take out a queen if the circumstances are set up properly. This argument can be stopped by someone saying: "Well, with God, all things are possible." Or another saying: "Well, she has since appeared many times to others." (and citing times and places and circumstances). But in the end, no matter whether white or black triumphs, it will always be a matter of faith.

I stand by my Lady and defend her as she sees fit. She is my Queen, and I, her pawn. She is a pillar of virtue, and has no stain. There is no trickery or guile in her soul, and she is a gentle lady, and beautiful. I would that you would have respect for her virtue.

Answer 10

It's easy to say it happened like that..........because that explanation is logical, simple, and easy for everyone to understand. There are, however, some things that simply cannot be explained by logic, because they defy logic itself. The Virgin Birth, i believe, is one of them. By human nature, we always try to comprehend the things that defy our logic and understanding by bringing it back within the bounds of logical thinking......because we simply despise knowing that we really cannot explain it, because it is far more complexed than we can conceive. and you are right..........it really does make sense and seem a lot clearer and more understandable when put that way.............which is why, i guess most people would accept this interpretation.

~PhoeniX~