Literalism & Virgin birth...

[_Roger Morrison]

Reposted:

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, doesn't this show that Spong is a pretty sloppy exegete. The birth narratives are pretty short, yet Spong's statement is nonsense in light of Lk. 1:34.

Richard, "...Spong's statement is nonesense..." ONLY IF/WHEN one takes literally Lk. 1:34... Spong doesn't, nor do I.

Biblical "miracles" in general, are being addressed by Spong--this one being: "Virgin Birth". Recall Spong is speaking 'against' Fundamentalism. He can be criticized for 'his' "exegete", and can be disagreed with, by those who feel so inclined... Just the way it is when discussing 'beliefs'...

JAK, nice to see you 'here'. I appreciate your in-put...

Fortigurn, thanks for the netbible site, cool...

Gaz, nice to read you Bro... You make a good bed-fellow with Richard ;-)... Although how yer gonna resolve 'proxy baptism' will be VERY interesting...

However, does "life after death" have anything to do with "Virgin Birth"? Askng another question of equal irrelevance while I'm at it: What do the answers-to/opinions-of either of those 'fundamental' Christian dogmas have to do with living a moral, socially contributing life in the 21st century? Warm regards, Roger

[_Fortigurn]

Fortigurn, thanks for the netbible site, cool...

I think even you might like it. The footnotes are excellent.

However, does "life after death" have anything to do with "Virgin Birth"?

Read through the thread and you'll see how we arrived there.

Askng another question of equal irrelevance while I'm at it: What do the answers-to/opinions-of either of those 'fundamental' Christian dogmas have to do with living a moral, socially contributing life in the 21st century?

Easy. Doctrine determines practice. It could be argued that US politics is in a mess because of Evangelical eschatology.

[_richardMdBorn]

My new comments are in bold.

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, doesn't this show that Spong is a pretty sloppy exegete. The birth narratives are pretty short, yet Spong's statement is nonsense in light of Lk. 1:34.

Roger Richard, "...Spong's statement is nonesense..." ONLY IF/WHEN one takes literally Lk. 1:34... Spong doesn't, nor do I.

Biblical "miracles" in general, are being addressed by Spong--this one being: "Virgin Birth". Recall Spong is speaking 'against' Fundamentalism. He can be criticized for 'his' "exegete", and can be disagreed with, by those who feel so inclined... Just the way it is when discussing 'beliefs'..

Richard You are not dealing with my statement Spong is arguing that today we understand that virgin births would be a miracle but 1st C folks apparently did not know this. Yet Lk 1:34 shows that 1st C AD folks did know that virgin births would be miraculous. How did Spong miss this?

[_Gazelam]

How was the gospel preached to those in prison if they are unconcious or sleeping till the day of judgement?

Is that like one of those headset things you listen to and subconciously take in the information while sleeping? (sorry, I'm kidding of coarce)

And since baptism is a requirement for salvation, how would it be done if not by proxy?

[_Jason Bourne]

Reposted:

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, doesn't this show that Spong is a pretty sloppy exegete. The birth narratives are pretty short, yet Spong's statement is nonsense in light of Lk. 1:34.

Richard,

You need to work on editing your post better so they are legible. The quote function is faril easy to use. Just cut and paste what you want to respond to, highligh it and hit quote. Then type your reponse below. Then procees to the next cut and paste. It will look like this:

Richard thinks Sping is all wet.

Well I think Spong is all wet too.

Roger thinks Spong is cool.

Well I do like some of what he says, but this nine decade thing seems sillly.

[_Roger Morrison]

Richard, you say:

Richard You are not dealing with my statement Spong is arguing that today we understand that virgin births would be a miracle but 1st C folks apparently did not know this. Yet Lk 1:34 shows that 1st C AD folks did know that virgin births would be miraculous. How did Spong miss this?

I have no idea, how Spong missed it? Could be's: Didn't think it important, or relevant? He doesn't believe in "miracles" who ever declares them? As we know. the Bible, Old Testament & New Testament, is full of "miracles". Events that today are not considered actualities or historical realities. They simply are mythological at best and fantasies at worse. In neither case do they effect the historical, walking talking, among the people, Jesus...

Gaz, you ask:

How was the gospel preached to those in prison if they are unconcious or sleeping till the day of judgement?

Is that like one of those headset things you listen to and subconciously take in the information while sleeping? (sorry, I'm kidding of coarce)

And since baptism is a requirement for salvation, how would it be done if not by proxy?

Some, do not believe the story of "...preached to those in prison..." As well, some (including me) do not think the ritual of "baptism" is at all necessary for "salvation"--whatever that might mean... As for "proxy baptisim": i respectfully suggest it is nothing but a mortal action imagined serving an immortal purpose in answer to an unanswerable question posed in a world of fantasia. IMSCO, that is... Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Richard You are not dealing with my statement Spong is arguing that today we understand that virgin births would be a miracle but 1st C folks apparently did not know this. Yet Lk 1:34 shows that 1st C AD folks did know that virgin births would be miraculous. How did Spong miss this?

Roger I have no idea, how Spong missed it? Could be's: Didn't think it important, or relevant?

Richard It’s relevant since it contradicts his point.

Roger He doesn't believe in "miracles" who ever declares them? As we know. the Bible, Old Testament & New Testament, is full of "miracles". Events that today are not considered actualities or historical realities.

Richard And who decided that? Does David Hume have the final say on what’s historical?

Roger They simply are mythological at best and fantasies at worse. In neither case do they effect the historical, walking talking, among the people, Jesus..

Richard Christianity, like Judaism, is a historical religion. It has philosophical aspects, but it primarily makes historical claims. Takes away the miracles, and you affect Jesus’ claims to authority and what his mission was in coming to earth.

[_Roger Morrison]

Good Sabath Richard, you say:

Richard It’s relevant since it contradicts his point.

You see it that way. I don't. Possibly Spong doesn't either. Anyway i don't think the whole question of VB depends on Luke's supposed statement... You:

Richard And who decided that? Does David Hume have the final say on what’s historical?

What does "David Hume" have to do with anything/this-question? I come to "MY" conclusion through my process of reading, thinking, studying, thinking--more of the same, until "I" feel good with MY conclusion. The fore mentioned process is ongoing, for ME... IF/WHEN I find grounds on which to build a new position "I" will. Thanks or no-thanks to Spong, HUme, Rick Warren or GB Hinckley >>>>> :-) You say further:

Richard Christianity, like Judaism, is a historical religion. It has philosophical aspects, but it primarily makes historical claims. Takes away the miracles, and you affect Jesus’ claims to authority and what his mission was in coming to earth.

"...historical claims..." are fine to "make". ARE (ALL?) the "claims" believeable is THE question. To some YES; to others NO... "Jesus' claims" are in the 'text', for what ever reasons &/or purpose. However, the principles of goodwill, justice and magnanimity among men taught/demonstrated by Jesus' character is HIS mission. Gotta run.... Roger

[_Yoda]

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."

If you were addressing me, I think you misread my post. I was stating that I didn't believe in the virgin birth. I was disagreeing with the "Mormon" notion that in order for Christ to be divine, he had to have the seed of both God the Father and Mary.

My point was....Why couldn't Jesus still be divine, and all of his teachings be just as valid if he was the child of Mary and Joseph? I think this whole idea that Mormonism has adopted regarding "spiritual genetics" is balderdash(to use Harmony's expression). If God is really God, He has the ability to give divine power to Jesus, or to anyone else He chooses. Why this blind thinking that He has to go through the same means of mortal man to do so? If God has the power to control the elements, He can operate on laws that we do not understand yet. Does that clarify where I am coming from?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Liz, you say, into which i'll interject in bold:

My point was....Why couldn't Jesus still be divine, and all of his teachings be just as valid if he was the child of Mary and Joseph? This is Spong's point exactly I think this whole idea that Mormonism & most other Christian sects (are there any exceptions?) has adopted regarding "spiritual genetics" is balderdash(to use Harmony's expression). If God is really God, He has the ability to give divine power to Jesus, or to anyone else He chooses. Personally, i don't believe "God" chooses. We choose. "God" stuff is determined by irrevocable laws... Why this blind thinking that He has to go through the same means of mortal man to do so? Because of ignorance that generaly accompanies "blind thinking"... If God has the power to control the elements, He can operate on laws that we do not understand yet. Yes, ever learning on the way to a fullness of life... Does that clarify where I am coming from? It should... :-)

I couldn't find the post you are addressing with your quote. Doesn't matter, i think you have "clarified" where yer from. And, given me the opportunity to encourage you to, "Keep on travelin'!" Warm regards, Roger