NOGO

Is it reasonable for even Christians to believe in Jesus' virgin birth?

We are all familiar with the myth of the birth of Hecules. His mother ware human and his father was Zeus. The product of this union was a demi-god with superhuman qualities such as superhuman stength. Zeus had many sons some were Gods, union between two Gods and some were demi-Gods which were the union between a God and a human.

Mary was Jesus' mother but who was his father? One has to guess based on Mt1:20, which states that the child was conceived in Mary, that Yahweh somehow created a sperm and fertilized Mary's ovum. But what would be the reason for this?

The NT does not claim any special superhuman traits for Jesus, like superhuman intelligence or superhuman strength etc. One must realize that a sperm however special cannot be anything but human, if it is to fertilize a human ovum. Therefore what Yahweh could have done with the sperm in question is limited to human traits and within the envelope of human capabilities. The NT indicates that Jesus himself stated that his words and works were from God and not from him. (Jn7:17, Jn12:49, Jn14:10) Therefore nothing transmitted through genes is of any interest here. Jesus did not show superhuman intelligence when he was verbally battling the pharisees nor did he show superhuman capabilities when he did miracles. For one thing miracles are not within the capabilities of the human genetic architecture. Also Jesus does not claim that they come from him personally, so one is forced to conclude that Jesus' genetic makeup is totally irrelevant to his earthly mission.

Clearly what we are left with is a symbolic purpose. The virgin birth simply meant that Jesus was the son of God.

There were other symbols of the "son of God" title.
1. Jesus himself claimed that to be a son of God one has to hear and accept God's word. (John 1:12, 6:63, 3:16, 8:51, 17:1-2,8)
2. As the anointed one of God Jesus can also claim to be the son of God. (2 Sam 7:13-14)
3. Luke genealogy of Jesus goes all the way back to Adam who was the "son of God" imlpying that all humans are sons of God.
4 Jesus was the "word" the firstborn of God. (John 1)

So why add another to this list which contributes absolutely nothing to Christian doctrine?
Christians already accept that Jesus was human and that he had a human mother.

John 1:32
John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

Notice the strange "He remained upon Him". The Spirit of God is referred to as a person, He.

John 1:33:34
"I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' "I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

So John the Baptist recognized Jesus as the Son of God when the Spirit of God descended upon him. Some may argue that Jesus was not the Son of God until the Spirit of God descended upon him. I believe that the Spirit of God (He in verse 32) is the Son of God but that is another story.

From the GJohn author's point of view the title of Son of God seems to come from the Spirit of God and not from the virgin birth. If we look at the other Gospels and Jesus' baptism we notice that none of the others mention this link between the Son of God and the receiving of the Spirit of God.

One can almost state that item [4] of the list above is replaced by the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke.

John does not mention the virgin birth because he did not need it. His story stands perfectly well without it.

Sojourner553

I always found it interesting to ask:

If Jesus was born of a virgin, how can he also be descended (through Joseph) from King David??

Depends which gospel writer you like: Mark and John mention Jesus was descended from David, but omit mention of the virgin birth.

Luke and Matthew have it just the opposite.

So we see an even split (50:50%) on which myth the gospel writers chose to include in their story.


Sojourner

Sojourner553

I always found it interesting to ask:

If Jesus was born of a virgin, how can he also be descended (through Joseph) from King David??

Depends which gospel writer you like: Mark and John mention Jesus was descended from David, but omit mention of the virgin birth.

Luke and Matthew have it just the opposite.

So we see an even split (50:50%) on which myth the gospel writers chose to include in their story.


Of course: The earliest writer -- ie Paul -- never heard of neither of these myths in his day.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

David Conklin

1) There is evidence in Paul that he was fully aware that Jesus's conception was not in the normal course.

2) There is evidence in Paul's writings (spec. 1 & 2(?) Thess., written in approx. 52 A.D.) that he used the Gospel of Matthew.

Butters

David Conklin

I wouldn't believe it either--if I choose to ignore the culture in which it was originated. But, since I paty attentio to all the detials that I can lay my hands on I chose instead to ignore those (like Paine) who do not pay attention (in Paine's case they quite simply did not know as much ab't the ANE as we do today, any input from him is quite passe).

Sojourner553

Extraordinary claims require at least a teeny amount of evidence...

Verses please. And you did say "conception" and not "nature":

Paul did view Jesus very much like one of the Greek mystery religion's gods.

Indeed: Paul NEVER gives any information regarding times and places of Jesus' life on earth. He never alludes to the spectacular
nature of Jesus' annunciation and birth, nor does he ever allude to a virgin birth.

Do you disagree?

Some verses and analysis would be helpful.

Sojourner

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

The better question is whether the author of GJohn was aware "that Jesus' conception was not in a normal course", as you put it?

David Conklin

See J. Bernard Orchard "Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels," Biblica 19 (1938): 19-42. Should be readily obtained through your local library via interlibrary loan. I'm not sure how things are done where you live but here in Minnesota I get copies of journal articles for free and in less than 2 weeks.

I just memorized the source when I studied the Synoptic Propblem.

David Conklin

That of course is assuming that I even made an extraordinary claim in the first place. But, then I did assume that most intelligent people who have studied this issue have done the necessary research (otherwise we have the "pooling of ignorance" phenomena).

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

The Greek here indicates that Paul recognized that the conception of Jesus was not in the normal course of events.

I used the word "conception" to distinguish it from the word "birth".

Actually not even close. Are you using Kersey Graves as a source for this?

Yes, I disagree, especially with the gross simplicity of the statement, the reality is far more complex. A very careful reading of Paul's writings shows that he is well aware of Jesus, his birth, and what he said. In fact, scholars in the field have pointed out that Paul assumes that his readers are also well aware of Jesus. So much so that Paul does not have to quote Jesus but merely allude to what He said or did. And why repeat what Paul knows his readers already know?

BTW, thanks to everyone on this forum for your very courteous responses. Sure beats the beatings I have taken from some Christians!