Literalism & Virgin birth...

[_Jason Bourne]

I have never heard that the virgin story was inserted into the text in the ninth century. Can anyone provide some documentation of that?

No they can't, because it's not true.

I have read a number of books by Bart Ehrman and this is not one that he has pointed to as very late addition, and he is pretty thorough.

Yes, when even Ehrman won't touch it, you know it smells.

I think Spong got this one really wrong. Ninth century addition?

As I said, Spong actually said the 9th decade, but that's also untrue. Of course, given the audience he targets he could say 'the 9th century' and still get away with it, because they wouldn't know any better.

Ah, I read it wrong. Sorry about that.

[_richardMdBorn]

Spong What he says of Jesus' origins is that he was born of a woman (not a virgin) like everyone else and that he was born under the law like every Jew.

Richard I thought that female virgins of a certain age could be called women, but Spong writes no.

Spong Mark, the earliest gospel writer, also appears to know nothing about a miraculous birth.

Richard Mark does not deal with the birth.

Spong In Mark, the fully human Jesus comes to be baptized by John the Baptist and, as he steps into the Jordan River, the heavens open and the Spirit is poured out on him by the God who lives above the sky. For Mark this infusion of the Holy Spirit is the source of Jesus' claim to be a divine, God-filled life.

Richard Where is this in the text? The spirit and the voice are affirming something which was already the case. Mark called Jesus the son of God in 1:1.

Spong Today we know that virgins do not conceive. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, however, where the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood, the only way they could explain human greatness was to ascribe to the hero a supernatural heritage in which a divine being or presence acting upon a pure virgin produced a "god/man." Such stories were a dime a dozen in that world.

Richard Luke realized that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. Lk 1:34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle.

[_Roger Morrison]

This has always been a fascinating topic for me as well. You may want to try reading "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner.

It is extremely well-researched and sheds a lot of light on the subject regarding Jewish traditions, and fact and fiction regarding Christ's birth.

Gardner's position is that Joseph is the father of Jesus. Apparently, there are several different steps specifically associated with dynastic marriage. Dynastic couples are only suppose to conceive at certain times. Betrothal was actually a part of the marriage process, but Mary and Joseph were not suppose to conceive during this time. The fact that they "slipped" and did conceive had to gain special approval that the child was still the firstborn of dynastic descent. The "Michael", which was actually an authority in the Jewish Church, approved the validity.

It's interesting reading, and you gain a different perspective on the whole "virgin birth" concept.

Also..."virgin" is a Hebrew translation of "young woman". It did not gain the context of a woman who had not been sexually active until many years later.

Liz, 'tis fascinating. Thanks for the ref, i'll check it out. I've read a fair bit of "Virgin birth" stuff writen by Christian scholars/opinionists, as their yeah/nea sayers will see them. It seems the consensus is, Joseph was Jesus' father & Mary was his mother, as any/most mother(s): Not "over-shadowed" by anyone but her husband.

"Virgin birth" mythology goes back, long before Christianism. Buddah being one created in the same pattern, described in, The Light of Asia by O.W. Holmes. The Persian "God" Zoroaster was born of a virgin birth from a 'ray-of-divine-reason'... Lord Krishna is another... Tom Harpur, in The Pagan Christ, from which the above came, also says, "...30 to 50 earlier "Gods" (or Christs) in the ancient sacred bibles of the world..." A VG book by the way!

I'm not sure the exactness of the time-line--"9 decades"--is all that important. To me, what is worth seriously considering is the question, "was Jesus born of a young woman inseminated by "God" or by her husband Joseph?" And, if by Joseph, does the fact of Jesus being mortal, invalidate his teachings as we have them in the "Sermon On The Mount" that humanity is to deal charitably, and empathetically with one another? As well to honour "...all that "God" grants us..."

IMSCO, debunking the "Virgin Birth" in no way diminishes Jesus. In reality (mine) it makes him more accessable, believable and a-kin... Warm regards, Roger

[_Fortigurn]

Roger, there's no necessity to post a normal parturition of Jesus in order to establish his mortality. In the New Testament, being born of a virgin didn't make Jesus a Divine being (an important difference between the synoptic virgin birth and the virgin births of the pagans), it simply meant you were a mortal who had been born by miraculous means. I'm a Christian who believes in the virgin birth, and I believe that Jesus was entirely mortal.

[_Z]

Wow I'd say Spong's arguments are more bizarre in this installment than in the "Bible innerancy" post. I especially love how he interprets the events surounding the birth of Jesus in the most far-fetched way possible before mocking them as unrealistic. For example, who actually beleives the star moved as the wise men followed it? I think even as a child I was able to figure out that the star was simply in the direction of bethlehem in relation to the wise men's position, and they walked towards it. etc.

He seems to be attempting an reductio ad absurdum argument, making us feel like the events of Christ's birth as recorded in the gospels are too miraculous to have occured. Once again he's attempting to convince beleivers from the perspective of a non-beleiver. A beleiver would respond, "The miracles are evidence of his divinity. Of course they're unusual, he's Jesus Christ." There's no way of knowing what really happened, so its a matter of conjecture either way.

I would also like to point out that the author's emphatic insistance that "not one" modern bibilical scholar beleives the events surounding Christ's birth were literal seems to be bogus. I just did a quick google search on the nativity of Jesus and I at first had a hard time finding scholars endorsing anything BUT a literal interpretation. It was mostly just scholars arguing about which census it was or what year it all happened in. Eventually I found some discussion of the possibility of mythology mixed in but it was always presented as an ongoing debate.

Of course there were plenty of references to the controversey surrounding the "virgin birth" doctrine, which is the real matter at hand. And I have to say, I'm not sure I beleive it. But certainly not for the arguments listed above. Of course it COULD have happened that way. God can do anything. But from what I've researched on my own it doesn't seem probable. Besides I don't think its necessary for my beleif in the divinity of Christ.

Incidentally, I even had a BYU religion professor once who told us the virgin birth was false. I wish I could remember his name. He was a pretty well known one too.

[_Yoda]

I'm not sure the exactness of the time-line--"9 decades"--is all that important. To me, what is worth seriously considering is the question, "was Jesus born of a young woman inseminated by "God" or by her husband Joseph?" And, if by Joseph, does the fact of Jesus being mortal, invalidate his teachings as we have them in the "Sermon On The Mount" that humanity is to deal charitably, and empathetically with one another? As well to honour "...all that "God" grants us..."

IMSCO, debunking the "Virgin Birth" in no way diminishes Jesus. In reality (mine) it makes him more accessible, believable and a-kin... Warm regards, Roger

I completely agree! And, I will take it one step further. I don't think that Jesus being the literal descendant of Joseph and Mary diminishes his role as being divine, or being the Savior of the world.

If God is God, why could He not appoint Jesus to be sent down during that particular time to that particular family, just as He does with all of us? Jesus being the son of Joseph gave him the dynastic lineage to lead the Church during that time frame.

[_Some Schmo]

Wow... just... wow. *Cue Twilight Zone music.*

Yep, god can do anything he darn well pleases, can't he? How convenient! He can even do whatever it takes for full grown people to suspend all logic in order to hold on to beliefs that a nine-year-old can see through.

Is the only thing that allows you to publicly admit you believe the virgin birth is the fact that you're anonymous on the net? I'm seriously embarrassed for all Bible literalists. I mean, really... you'll believe pretty much anything if it's called "divine."

[_Fortigurn]

Yep, god can do anything he darn well pleases, can't he?

No He can't. That's why many of us don't believe in the trinity, or the immortal soul, or the doctrine of heaven and hell going at death.

I'm seriously embarrassed for all Bible literalists. I mean, really... you'll believe pretty much anything if it's called "divine."

I'm afraid we won't.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm not sure the exactness of the time-line--"9 decades"--is all that important. To me, what is worth seriously considering is the question, "was Jesus born of a young woman inseminated by "God" or by her husband Joseph?" And, if by Joseph, does the fact of Jesus being mortal, invalidate his teachings as we have them in the "Sermon On The Mount" that humanity is to deal charitably, and empathetically with one another? As well to honour "...all that "God" grants us..."

IMSCO, debunking the "Virgin Birth" in no way diminishes Jesus. In reality (mine) it makes him more accessable, believable and a-kin... Warm regards,

It may not debunk the teachings but what does it mean for His Sonship of God, being God manifested in flesh and His power to die and pay for sins and rise again? It seems to cause a problem.

[_Some Schmo]

Yep, god can do anything he darn well pleases, can't he?

No He can't. That's why many of us don't believe in the trinity, or the immortal soul, or the doctrine of heaven and hell going at death.

I'm seriously embarrassed for all Bible literalists. I mean, really... you'll believe pretty much anything if it's called "divine."

I'm afraid we won't.

So then where do you draw the line? Heaven and hell, no, virgin birth, yes? It seems entirely arbitrary to me. You appear to want to eat your cake (ie logic) and have it too.