|
Post by jerry on Jun 8, 2008 5:24:37 GMT -5
If Jesus had been born of a virgin, one would expect such a unique and defining revelation to be mentioned frequently throughout the NT. This is not the case. In fact his birth is mentioned in only two of the 27 books that make up the NT. It is evident that John the Baptist who prepared the way for Jesus knew nothing about a virgin birth. Those who were to become the disciples of Jesus shared the common belief of Jews of the time that the messiah would be a mortal man. When the first disciples identified Jesus as the messiah written of in the OT, like everyone else they believed he was the biological son of Joseph. There is no evidence that Jesus sought to change the understanding of his disciples, or anyone else, that Joseph was his father. In fact the NT does not record Jesus mentioning his birth. The apostles had the function of taking the message about Jesus to the Jews and the Gentiles. There is not one instance in Acts of the Apostles or Paul’s writings of any one of them preaching about the birth of Jesus, yet alone correcting the common belief that Joseph was his biological father. In similar vein, the gospel of Mark does not consider the birth relevant to the story of Jesus, or warrants a mention. Mark commenced “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” when Jesus was about 30 years of age. Had there been a claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, it is inconceivable that antagonistic family members or his enemies would not have thrown the claim in his face. The NT does not record one instance of this happening. In addition, Mary’s part in two incidents mentioned in the NT is inexplicable if she was the Virgin Mother of a divine Jesus, as the churches claim. All this is evidence against the disciples believing a virgin birth had occurred, or for that matter anyone in NT times being aware of such a claim. Those who claim the virgin birth is true usually rely on three passages in the Bible. They rely on a mistranslation and words being used in a peculiar way when they are applied to Jesus. This information can be read in more detail on www.wallsofjericho.info
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 8, 2008 17:12:59 GMT -5
That’s for bringing up a topic to discuss. I think I should point out that just because the Bible does not spell something else does not mean that it was not. John 20: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. A clear separation between God as Christ’s father and others father. It is worth noting that Christ only used the term “our father” referring to God when he offered “the Lords prayer” which he stated was an example for those he was teaching. “My Father” referring to God comes up many many times. “Your Father” is also used many times referring to God. It would appear that Christ was aware that he was unique in his relationship to God. The NT record makes it quite clear that Mary Jesus was not the son of a mortal. Luke 1: 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. That Christ reality as the “Son of God” was not widely talked about before his ministry is logical as the religious zealots of the time might have tried to have him killed for blaspheme or his mother for adultery if she made it known that Joseph was not Jesus’ father.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jun 12, 2008 16:27:27 GMT -5
The virgin birth is an interesting issue. Claiming a virgin birth for an important person was a common practice among the Greeks and Romans (and, I think, other adjacent contemporary societies). Thus, it is not surprising that Christ is claimed to be a virgin birth, whether or not he was. The evidence you have cited, Teancum, seems a little "circumstantial" to me; Luke 1:35 could certainly imply a virgin birth, but to be honest, I would not make that connection without having it pointed out to me (which makes it, to me, relatively weak evidence). Your point about Christ's dual references I find more interesting; again, I would not necessarily have spontaneously made the connection, but I see that someone could reasonably do so. On the other hand, all it clearly does is differentiate Christ from the general run of man, not necessarily that he is differentiated by a virgin birth.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 16, 2008 9:42:03 GMT -5
You are right alone those references don't establish a virgin birth very well, but I would argue that they clearly allow for it.
Matthew on the other hand is quite clear: 18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was con this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Now as long as Matthew is being honest we have a very clear establishment of Mary being a virgin to which the other references are supportive.
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 5, 2008 1:17:11 GMT -5
All 3 replies so far have been thoughtful. I will deal with one of them now, and another in a later post.
It is claimed that Matthew 1:18-25 "is a very clear establishment of Mary being a virgin".
A few points can be made about this passage (which is reproduced in teancum's reply June 16).
1. Basically what this passage tells us is this - Mary became pregnant. Joseph, knowing he was not the father, was minded to put her away privily. In a dream Joseph was instructed to take Mary as his wife and to name the child Jesus. Joseph carried out both instructions.
2. In the OT God is described as being involved in many births. This is never meant to suggest other than normal conception.
3. Matthew quotes Isaiah's prophecy (Isa 7:14) which refers to a "young woman" not a "virgin". Church scholars have long claimed that Matthew did not actually quote the OT, but a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT which mistranslated the word as "virgin". The evidence suggests the scholars' claims are wrong and self serving.
4. The evidence from earlier times is that Matthew was written in Hebrew. According to the current Pope, Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.
5. Jerome's testimony supports the argument that Matthew quoted the Hebrew OT, not the Greek Septuagint (which contains the mistranslation referred to).
6. This, also, is what Matthew specifically says: he refers to the prophecy "spoken by the the Lord through the prophet". Isaiah spoke in Hebrew and his words are recorded in the Hebrew OT. If Matthew's words are to be taken for what they say, he quoted the Hebrew OT.
7. Isaiah's prophecy had 2 fulfilments, the first in Isaiah's time some 700 years before the birth of Jesus. If Isaiah predicted a virgin birth then there are 2 virgin births.
8. If Isaiah did not predict a virgin birth then there is no virgin birth prophecy to be fulfilled.
9. Point 8 is the correct position. And this is why the disciples or those antagonistic to Jesus never thought to raise the issue of virgin birth - the thought never entered their heads.
10. In fact, when the first disciples were drawn to Jesus, they thought he was the son of Joseph, but this did not stop them describing him as the "Son of God", the "messiah," "of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote", and the "King of Israel". These disciples thought the "messiah" and the "Son of God" was a mortal man.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 5, 2008 10:35:47 GMT -5
Just trying to make sure I understand you position is it that
A Matthew and Luke where on something they should not be on.
B. The Angel(s) lied through their teeth
C. Someone really messed up the Bible when putting it together.
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 6, 2008 7:34:16 GMT -5
teancum, I am not challenging what the Bible says, but the Churches' interpretation of it. The interpretation of Mary's response to the angel Gabriel is a good example of this. Here is the passage in question. 26. In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28. The angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women.
29. But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was.
30. Then the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.
31. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call his name Jesus.
32. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
33. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.
34. Then Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Here are a few comments on this passage and how it has been interpreted. 1. Mary's question was predicated on what the angel said to her. 2. There is nothing in what the angel said to suggest anything other than normal conception of the child. 3. The Churches interpret (and in some cases translate) Mary's question as meaning, "How shall this be, since I am a virgin?" 4. This is a ridiculous interpretation of Mary's question by any measure. 5. Mary was betrothed and no doubt expecting to have children in due course. The angel spoke of a future conception. Are we to think that Mary did not understand about the birds and the bees, and was asking the angel how she would get pregnant in the future? 6. Catholic theologians have long known the problem with this position, and came up with an ingenious claim to overcome the problem. They claim Mary had made a pact of perpetual virginity with Joseph, and she was asking - as someone who intended to remain forever a virgin - how would she get pregnant! 7. Mary was told the child would be given "the throne of his father David". 8. Joseph could not be the father of such a child. Although a descendant of David, it was through a line God had forever barred from sitting upon the throne of David. (Jeconiah, see Mt. 1:11, Jer 22:30). 9. Mary’s question directly addresses this conundrum, and nothing more. This becomes clear when we consult the Greek, in which Luke’s gospel was composed, to see what is meant here by the word "know". 10. The Greek word used in Mary’s question is ginosko – to know. Luke uses it on 22 other occasions, for example in Zacharias’ question: 11. And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.” 12. On these 22 occasions, ginosko (to know) never refers to sexual intercourse. Each time it is used in the sense of “learning” or “knowing” about something. 13. In the case of Zacharias, for example, he did not know how this could happen as Elizabeth was past the age of childbearing. 14. In the case of Mary, she had just been told that her son would be given the throne of his father David. However the person to whom she was betrothed could not father such a child, and naturally Mary was perplexed as to how this would come about. 15. Mary was not challenging what Gabriel had just told her, rather she was seeking further information. Her question could quite reasonably be put like this: How can this be, since I do not know a man who has the credentials to be father of the son you have just told me about?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 6, 2008 22:21:46 GMT -5
Jerry, Not trying to be offensive, but it seems as though you are taking just as much liberty with what is actually written as those who support Virgin Birth.
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 6, 2008 22:54:39 GMT -5
Mestemia,
No offence taken.
The points in both my replies are numbered. Please make your own assessment on each point.
Here's a thought.
Say a mother and daughter were having a heart to heart conversation, and the daughter said to her mother, "You said that one day I will have a child of my own, but I am a virgin, so how is this possible?"
What would this question tell you about the daughter?
Do you think this is what Mary was asking the angel?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 7, 2008 3:16:12 GMT -5
Mestemia, No offence taken. The points in both my replies are numbered. Please make your own assessment on each point. Here's a thought. Say a mother and daughter were having a heart to heart conversation, and the daughter said to her mother, "You said that one day I will have a child of my own, but I am a virgin, so how is this possible?" What would this question tell you about the daughter? Do you think this is what Mary was asking the angel? I think i do not know. I further think that I will needs find someone who can tell me what the original language says, since this seems to me a topic of wording.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 7, 2008 5:35:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 7, 2008 9:16:33 GMT -5
Jerry there are many catholic beliefs that are not well supported in the Bible they come from their traditions and words of their Popes and Saints. While many of their ideas can't be clearly defined by the Bible text their belief system (unlike most Protestant's) is not limited to the Bible.
If "know" has no sexual reference is correct why was it mentioned specifically by Matthew in relation to Joseph and Mary. They lived together for a time and travailed together it can't mean that they did not get acquainted until after the birth of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 7, 2008 13:49:49 GMT -5
Context is a given. But one needs also take into account the beliefs, practices, etc. of not only when it was written, but when it was written about. Not to mention the authors reason for writing it, their beliefs, bias, leanings, etc. Now we cannot know all of these things for every single author, but the more of them one knows, the better understanding one can get from what is written.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 7, 2008 14:05:57 GMT -5
This one starts out with an appeal to authority. Then jumps immediately to an appeal to tradition. Then starts begging the question. Not a very good article at all in my opinion. This article is rather informative, but it does not present nor define what is written in the original language. And I am always leary/dubious/suspicious when some one argues the wording of scripture based upon a translation.
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 7, 2008 20:34:42 GMT -5
|
|