The virgin birth is not in the Bible

[dianaholberg]

Jul 9, 2008 19:53:05 GMT -5 jerry said:

The Churches have been very imaginative in developing explanations of biblical passages to fit their virgin birth story.

Their claims surrounding Mary's question is a good illustration of this.

No, you have it backwards. After all, Christian testimony existed for several decades before it was written down.

Here a few more points to consider.

1. The "virgin birth prophecy" does not come from the OT, but from a Greek translation made some 500 years after the book of Isaiah was written. The Greek translated Isaiah's "young woman" as "virgin". It is claimed this "translation" was divinely inspired.

2. It is claimed that Matthew quoted this mistranslation and not what Isaiah said in Hebrew, even though Matthew said it was the prophecy "which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet" that was fulfilled.

Well, this is quite a slippery slope, isn't it Jerry? After all, most of the quotes of the OT books made by Jesus and the Apostles use the wording of the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew). So if you discard the accounts of the virgin birth on this basis, you have to discard most of what was taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

But perhaps that isn't of concern to you? Do you confess as a Christian? Self-excommunicated Catholic, perhaps?

3. It is claimed the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph, even though they are different.

4. It is claimed that the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph, but none of Jesus!

There is a genealogy of Joseph and one of Mary. Mary's would apply to Jesus by blood; Joseph's only as specified according to the prevalent laws of the time.

5. It is claimed that Jesus' Davidic descent was established through his foster father Joseph, even though the NT tells us that Jesus was born of the seed of David "according to the flesh".

Both Joseph and Mary were of Davidic descent, as is shown in both genealogies. Tribes generally did not intermarry -- that is how they remained distinct tribes.

6. It is claimed that Mary had a pact of perpetual virginity with Joseph, and this was the reason for her question to the angel.

Hey, you got one right! ;D

7. It is claimed that Mary remained a virgin, even though the NT names 4 brothers of Jesus and refers to sisters.

The word you are translating "brothers" and "sisters" is also translated "cousins" and could refer to any close friend or relative.

And so on.

Of course there is more to the story of how the Church has presented Jesus of Nazareth than these few points. There is also selective translations, inconsistent interpretations, doctrines established by "Church fathers" with a Greek mind interpreting a Hebrew book, etc. Perhaps these could best be explored in new threads.

Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture is nothing like non-Catholic interpretation. The Church recognizes that the NT is actually a record of Sacred Tradition which was standing before the NT was penned.

The men to whom you attribute "a Greek mind" include St. Augustine of Hippo (= Algerian/African, educated in Carthage/N. Africa -- not Greece) and St. Jerome (= Dalmation, educated in Rome -- again, not Greece).

You give way too much credit to the Greek philosophers and mistake the Christian mind for the worldly.

[jerry]

Responsibility for the ambiguities that surround the two accounts of the birth of Jesus can be traced back to the Greeks and Latins.

With the passing of the original followers of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the missionary activities of Paul and others, custody of the NT soon passed to peoples in the Roman Empire. In succeeding centuries it was their interpretations of scripture that laid the theological foundations of all the churches of christendom.

Those prominent in the theological ferment of the early centuries were largely from the eastern Greek half of the Empire, and Greek speaking. Between 325 AD and 869 AD there were eight “ecumenical councils” that defined the nature of God. All were held in the Greek east. Latin representation at these councils was numerically insignificant.

From the start the Greeks had a cultural and religious heritage that made them ill equipped to understand the OT and NT, which were written from a Hebrew and Jewish perspective. Their religion, with its multiplicity of gods, among whom was the Virgin Goddess Athena, gods acting like humans, gods impregnating mortal women, and so on, was nothing like the Hebrew religion with its concept of one God, a god of spirit and truth, who at times intervened in human affairs and “anointed” individuals to carry out certain functions.

Much the same can be said about the Latins. Several of the Roman emperors were deified by decree of the Senate. The Vestal Virgins undertook duties of their office in the temple of the goddess Vesta. And so on. The Latins borrowed a great deal from the Greek religion, often adopting its gods although applying to them different names.

When the Greeks and Latins looked into the NT they saw what was written there through the prism of their own culture, and applied their own scale of values. These values were those of the world in general, where self-righteous delusions and status consciousness all too often prevail over truth and humility.

Thus to these interpreters of the NT, Jesus became “God the son” which was far different to the Hebrew concept of “son of God”, where the OT and Jesus spoke of one God they came to see a trinity, “Jesus anointed” became to them the name “Jesus Christ”, and so on. As part of this process, they upgraded Jesus’ birth, reading a “virgin birth” into the two accounts that spoke only of normal conception.

What the Greeks and Latins read into the Bible is far different from what the Bible actually says. Nevertheless there have been armies of theologians through the ages who have willingly provided the most fanciful exegesis to protect the churches’ established theological positions. This is particularly evident for the doctrine of virgin birth.

Their treatment of Mary’s question is a good illustration. They propose that prior to the angel’s visit Mary and Joseph had made a pact of perpetual virginity, as an act of piety.

The proposition that a Jewish couple at that time would make such a pact as an act of piety, is ridiculous — to put it bluntly. And of course Luke never said anything about this alleged pact, which seems incredible if it were a fact.

Of course the reason for Mary's question is obvious — Joseph could not be the father of the child the angel had just spoken about, because God had debarred Joseph's line from ever sitting upon the throne of David. It is another instance of the theologians remembering what the NT authors forgot, and forgeting what the NT writers remembered.

[dianaholberg]

Jul 12, 2008 21:53:33 GMT -5 jerry said:

Responsibility for the ambiguities that surround the two accounts of the birth of Jesus can be traced back to the Greeks and Latins.

With the passing of the original followers of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the missionary activities of Paul and others, custody of the NT soon passed to peoples in the Roman Empire. In succeeding centuries it was their interpretations of scripture that laid the theological foundations of all the churches of christendom.

I have no patience for folks who throw out this "the Church corrupted Scripture" argument. We have more fragments of early manuscripts of the Bible than we do any other document in history, and as yet there is zero evidence that any corruption ever took place such as to distort the "theological foundations of Christendom " (prior to the Protestant Reformation, that is).

If you have evidence, you are the first -- please provide it.

Those prominent in the theological ferment of the early centuries were largely from the eastern Greek half of the Empire, and Greek speaking.

Hence the Greek originals for the NT. Pick an argument and stick to it, please.

Between 325 AD and 869 AD there were eight “ecumenical councils” that defined the nature of God. All were held in the Greek east. Latin representation at these councils was numerically insignificant.

Not so. The Church of Alexandria (Egypt, Africa) was significantly represented at the First Council of Nicaea, since the council was called primarily to address the Arian controversy which had originated in that church.

Next, the First Council of Constantinople was held only after two lesser councils: the Council of Ariminum (Rimini, Italy) and the Council of Seleucia (Seleucia, Iraq). Obviously there would have been Latin representation at Ariminum. Since the controversy resulting in these councils was still Arianism, you can be sure that Alexandria was again well represented. Since the bishops were divided in both of the lesser councils, Constantius called the ecumenical council at Constantinople specifically to include bishops from both East and West to resolve the matter. Your assumption that only the Eastern churches would have had a voice is unwarranted.

I could continue through the others. The entire reason these are called "ecumenical", which means "world-wide" or "general" is because they were specifically called to include all bishops from all areas of Christendom.

From the start the Greeks had a cultural and religious heritage that made them ill equipped to understand the OT and NT, which were written from a Hebrew and Jewish perspective. Their religion, with its multiplicity of gods, among whom was the Virgin Goddess Athena, gods acting like humans, gods impregnating mortal women, and so on, was nothing like the Hebrew religion with its concept of one God, a god of spirit and truth, who at times intervened in human affairs and “anointed” individuals to carry out certain functions.

Much the same can be said about the Latins. Several of the Roman emperors were deified by decree of the Senate. The Vestal Virgins undertook duties of their office in the temple of the goddess Vesta. And so on. The Latins borrowed a great deal from the Greek religion, often adopting its gods although applying to them different names.

Okay... not sure at all what this has to do with Christianity. Everyone knows that there were Greek and Roman pagans.

When the Greeks and Latins looked into the NT they saw what was written there through the prism of their own culture, and applied their own scale of values.

Again, evidence?

Fragments of the New Testament books have been recovered in many different languages, all saying the exact same thing (within the parameters of translation norms of the times). Anyone can write anything on an internet forum... without evidence it means nothing.

These values were those of the world in general, where self-righteous delusions and status consciousness all too often prevail over truth and humility.

I give. What is a "status consciousness"?

Thus to these interpreters of the NT, Jesus became “God the son” which was far different to the Hebrew concept of “son of God”,

Regardless, God the Son is Jesus Christ, who is Son of God and also Son of Man. The OT makes numerous references to both. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the preceding Hebrew concepts.

where the OT and Jesus spoke of one God they came to see a trinity, “Jesus anointed” became to them the name “Jesus Christ”, and so on.

Again, regardless, Jesus is "the Anointed One", the Messiah, as all will acknowledge at His return.

As part of this process, they upgraded Jesus’ birth, reading a “virgin birth” into the two accounts that spoke only of normal conception.

Where are these two accounts that you speak of? The only detailed account is in the Gospel of St. Luke, where he specifies twice that Mary was a virgin at Christ's conception.

What the Greeks and Latins read into the Bible is far different from what the Bible actually says. Nevertheless there have been armies of theologians through the ages who have willingly provided the most fanciful exegesis to protect the churches’ established theological positions. This is particularly evident for the doctrine of virgin birth.

I think I responded to this point before.

Their treatment of Mary’s question is a good illustration. They propose that prior to the angel’s visit Mary and Joseph had made a pact of perpetual virginity, as an act of piety.

The proposition that a Jewish couple at that time would make such a pact as an act of piety, is ridiculous — to put it bluntly. And of course Luke never said anything about this alleged pact, which seems incredible if it were a fact.

I was wrong when I said you had this point right. Mary's "pact" was not with Joseph. Mary was consecrated at birth by her parents to live and serve in the outer courts of the Temple. Joseph was aware of this when he agreed to marry her in order to secure her future. If he had entertained the idea of taking a girl consecrated to God into his bed (the thought is too distasteful for words), he certainly would have dropped the idea when the Angel Gabriel informed him that her child was conceived in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course the reason for Mary's question is obvious — Joseph could not be the father of the child the angel had just spoken about, because God had debarred Joseph's line from ever sitting upon the throne of David. It is another instance of the theologians remembering what the NT authors forgot, and forgeting what the NT writers remembered.

This does not explain Mary's question, because the Annunciation of the Archangel Gabriel does not specify when or by whom she would be impregnated. She had no reason to think it would not be Joseph, or that it would not be after her marriage, unless she was keeping her vow of virginity.

[dianaholberg]

Here is a link to the Protoevangelium of James, written approximately 150 A.D., long before the supposed "corruption" of the 5th century.

[jerry]

I leave it to readers to judge the merits of dianaholberg's replies, and to distingusih between Catholic claims that she puts forward and what the Bible actually says.

Aside from this, for those who think that dianaholberg accurately reflects Catholic scholarship and assertions, they may be interested in the following information from authorative Catholic sources (Note her comments in Reply 32).


1. Between 325 AD and 869 AD there were eight “ecumenical councils” that defined the nature of God. All were held in the Greek east. Latin representation never rose above a couple of percent. Here are a list of those "ecumenical councils":

First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)
Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)
Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553)
Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)
Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787)
Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (869)

Catholic Encyclopedia: Article - General Councils

2. Alexandria, geographically and culturally, was in the Greek eastern half of the Empire.

The oldest of these three civilizations is the Greek. Its centre, however, is not Athens but Alexandria...

It was in Alexandria also that Graeco-Oriental Christianity had its birth. There the Septuagint translation had been made; it was there that that fusion of Greek philosophy and Jewish religion took place which found in Philo its most important representative; there flourished the mystic speculative neo-Platonism associated with the names of Plotinus and Porphyry. At Alexandria the great Greek ecclesiastical writers pursued their studies with pagan rhetoricians rhetoricians and philosophers; in fact several of them were born here, e.g. Origen, Athanasius, and his opponent Arius, also Cyril and Synesius...

Catholic Encyclopedia: Article - Byzantione Literature

3. Catholic tradition holds that prior to the angel's visit Mary and Joseph had made a pact of virginity.

…the reason she gives for her question would be meaningless unless it supposes, as Catholic tradition holds, that she had a previous compact with Joseph about the observance of virginity. If it be objected that such a thing would be at complete variance with accepted Jewish thought, we answer first that the Incarnation and all its circumstances were also at variance with prevailing Jewish Messianism and thought.

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: Commentary on St Luke

[dianaholberg]

Listing the councils again does nothing to change the meaning of "ecumenical".

Regardless of the article about "Byzantine Literature", the Alexandrian area had a deep, rich history long before encountering Eastern Christian influences, and that history didn't evaporate. In fact, it is because of that strong Jewish and pagan history that the area was so influential on the shaping of the Church. This is not a negative -- quite the contrary. Christianity embraces Truth wherever it may be found, and Judaism is filled with references to our Lord. Even the pagan religions include fragments of Truth. Contrary to your belief, the virgin birth myths in these pagan religions are prophetic of the actual birth of our Lord.

Finally, I am not familiar with that Commentary you quoted regarding Mary's "compact" -- anyone can put "Catholic" in the title of their commentary, orthodox or not. But what you quoted is not contrary to what I have stated -- it is just a very simplistic way of looking at a deeply pious union, comparable to calling Matrimony "getting hitched".

[dianaholberg]

Oh, in case you (or anyone) questioned the authenticity of what I posted about the First Council of Constantinople, here is a source:

www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun3.html

Apparently there were more than two particular councils prior to the "General" or "Ecumenical" council (emphasis mine):

The only one of Constantine's sons who really favoured the anti-Nicaean party was Constantius II, and once he became sole master of the empire (350) the Radicals really threw off the mask, and Arianism proper--the explicit renunciation of the doctrine that the Logos is truly God--was now propounded in councils and, with great violence and persecution, imposed by the emperor. And it was in these years (350-61) that the heresy was first thrust upon the bishops of the still largely pagan West, of Illyricum, Italy, and Gaul. In council after council, in the west and in the east, whether perplexed by the confusion of the issues, whether terrified by the threats of the emperor and the knowledge that bishops had been murdered who opposed him, whether overcome by the specious argument that it was all, in reality, a matter of ridding the Church of Athanasius, "whom they were taught to consider a restless, violent, party-spirited man, and of his arbitrary formula"[6]--in council after council the bishops gave way wholesale, at Arles (353), Milan (355), Sirmium (357), and, most spectacularly, at the simultaneous councils of Rimini-Seleucia[7] (359) about the morrow of which St. Jerome wrote a celebrated phrase, that the whole world woke up one morning, lamenting and marvelling to find itself Arian.

As you can see, the Arian heresy was pernicious and pervasive. Interesting, isn't it, that while Arianism originated in Alexandria and had the support of so many particular councils, the result of the Ecumenical Council was its wholesale condemnation?

Either the West was better represented than you thought, or the Holy Spirit sure changed some hearts at Constantinople...

[dianaholberg]

Oh, and I notice... still no evidence whatsoever for your claims of the corruption of Scripture.

[jerry]

Re: Reply 35. FYI.

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture

With a Foreword by
The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster

Nihil Obstat: R. C. Fuller D.D., L.S.S.
Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen.

WESTMONASTERII, die 9 Aprilis 1951

Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd
London Edinburgh Paris Melbourne Johannesburg Toronto and New York

1312pp

[robl]

I only scanned through some of the dialog here. Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus Christ. she did not stay a virgin after she had him because she was married to Joeseph and obviously they had sex and Jesus had brothers and sisters. the idea that Mary stayed a virgin after she had Christ is catholic and is not found anywhere to be true in the Bible. However when she concieved Jesus up until the time that he was born she remained a virgin and that is the fact of Jesus Christ's miraclus birth.

[dianaholberg]

Rob, I beg to differ. The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is Catholic, but it was also held by all of the Protestant Reformers. Check it out:
Protestants on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[teancum79]

Your link is dead


I think I should point out though that most early reformers where braking away directly from the Catholic Church and the issue of whither or not Mary stayed a virgin probably was rather low on the priority list for awhile.

[dianaholberg]

Link fixed. Actually, the quotes in that article are from sermons written in the heat of the Reformation. There were several small heretical groups trying to say she did not remain a virgin. The Reformers (Luther and Zwingli, in particular) went to great lengths to correct them.

[robl]

Matthew 1:19-25 KJV 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.


So note the last verse there. The Bible here states that he knew her not till ie until her brought forth her firstborn son and he called his name Jesus. So we see clearly here that he waited to know her. Otherwise how could he have been one flesh with her as God stated that a man and his wife are to be.

Genesis 2:24 KJV Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

So I will use the Bible here and we can put two and two together and come up with four I'm sure. So the Bible clearly states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore the Lord Jesus Christ. But her husband was only commanded to refrain from sex with her until the baby boy was born. Because to be married to her he would have had to become one flesh with her.

[dianaholberg]

I won't change my stance till Hell freezes over. ;D

The word "till" does not imply eventuality. Joseph and Mary's was a chaste union. Joseph feared God too much to deflower the spouse of the Holy Spirit.