Virgin birth of Jesus and its acknowledgement

[Righttruth]

Only Gospel books (Matthew and Luke) mention about virgin birth of Jesus—a profound and sublime belief of a true believer in Jesus Christ. It was prophesized by Isaiah. We don’t find the mention of this miraculous and exalting birth anywhere else in the NT.

Unfortunately, Paul, the only one to mention of His birth, appears to sound that it is an ordinary one! The only well-known religious leader to record about virgin birth happens to be Mohammed in Koran!

Are we not unduly giving full importance to one rank outsider and totally disregarding another?

 

[Papias]

I wonder if some Christians consider the virgin birth a bigger deal than others? I mean, do some Christians find it to be central to their faith, more important than the resurrection, while others don't?

Papias

 

[ToBeLoved]

I wonder if some Christians consider the virgin birth a bigger deal than others? I mean, do some Christians find it to be central to their faith, more important than the resurrection, while others don't?

Papias

It is VERY CENTRAL to our faith if you think about it in detail.

Jesus was perfect, so an imperfect womb and birth canal would have contaminated Jesus' perfection.

There are Paul hater's who try to destroy Jesus Christ's work. Don't believe them, they are out there in force.

 

[Papias]

It is VERY CENTRAL to our faith if you think about it in detail.

Jesus was perfect, so an imperfect womb and birth canal would have contaminated Jesus' perfection.

Seriously? That doesn't seem to fit with mk 7 and Mt 15, where Jesus states that nothing that comes from outside can contaminate a person. I would think that our God is not so fragile that the details of a birth canal could destroy him.

There are Paul hater's who try to destroy Jesus Christ's work.

So now Jesus work itself is also so fragile that it can be destroyed by a birth canal?

It doesn't seem like it to me.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[ToBeLoved]

Seriously? That doesn't seem to fit with mk 7 and Mt 15, where Jesus states that nothing that comes from outside can contaminate a person. I would think that our God is not so fragile that the details of a birth canal could destroy him.

So now Jesus work itself is also so fragile that it can be destroyed by a birth canal?

Please share the specific verses you are referring to?

I didn't say Jesus could be destroyed by a birth canal. I said Jesus had no sin and if Mary would have had children BEFORE Jesus than sin would have been in her birth canal and womb.

Sometimes it is better to ask for clarity before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Papias]

Please share the specific verses you are referring to?

mk 7: 14-23
Mt 15:10-20

I didn't say Jesus could be destroyed by a birth canal. I said Jesus had no sin and if Mary would have had children BEFORE Jesus than sin would have been in her birth canal and womb.

So if any woman has sex, from then on there is sin swimming around in her uterus?

Or does sin only take up residence there after having kids, as you seem to be saying?

So if Mary had previously had kids, sin would be swimming in her uterus, or maybe hiding behind an ovary, and would have jumped out and pounced on Jesus, destroying him?

Or are you saying that the sin would have grabbed him and infected him with sin? If so, then didn't Mary already get infected by sin from the sin swimming in the birth canal she came out of?

It still sounds like you are saying that the fins of sin are more powerful than Jesus, so Jesus would have lost when he wrestled sin in Mary's birth canal.

Am I getting it right?

Sometimes it is better to ask for clarity before jumping to conclusions.

That's what I'm doing.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[ToBeLoved]

mk 7: 14-23

How does going through the birth canal during birth 'enter a man' to defile them? That was what Jesus said.

English Standard Version
There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

Same sort of thing for Matthew 15

10 Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.”

 

[Papias]

Aren't you saying that sin would go into Jesus? Jesus starts out without sin, of course, so if the sin from Mary's birth canal is going to go into him, it has to go into him from the outside. Are you saying that the sin would be absorbed by his skin? Is Jesus's skin permeable to sin - or does he have sin-blocking skin? How are you saying that the sin from Mary's birth canal would get into Jesus?

Plus, you didn't answer the other questions.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is being re-opened.
Please note that while questioning particular points of teaching is allowed, denying the apostleship of St. Paul is not.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[JackRT]

Aren't you saying that sin would go into Jesus? Jesus starts out without sin, of course, so if the sin from Mary's birth canal is going to go into him, it has to go into him from the outside. Are you saying that the sin would be absorbed by his skin? Is Jesus's skin permeable to sin - or does he have sin-blocking skin? How are you saying that the sin from Mary's birth canal would get into Jesus?

Plus, you didn't answer the other questions.

Saint Augustine wrote that Original Sin was carried through the male sperm. The notion that Original Sin was passed on through the father's seed, somewhat like a spiritual HIV virus, turns out to have been inherently flawed. We must realize, that at that point in history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tatamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even wet dreams were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

Now when we link these notions to the Nativity story we get further complications. Mary was believed to have become pregnant through the agency of God. God of course contributed the seed (genetic material) and Mary's role for the next nine months was as a nurturing womb. Jesus was born sinless because of course God was sinless. The stain of the Original Sin did not afflict him. It did not matter that Mary was afflicted with the sin.

This entire theory fell apart about 300 years ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

This realization seems to have provided a good deal of the impetus for the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. If Mary through her egg contributed to the genetic make up of Jesus then she too could pass on Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception solved this problem quite neatly by stating that Mary herself must have been concieved immaculately (without sin) through the agency of the grace of Jesus somehow applied retroactively.

 

[hedrick]

Jack:

Augustine's attitudes towards sex were probably not shared by the NT authors. And the Virgin Birth was well established by his time.

There were still misconceptions about conception in the 1st Cent. How much influence they had over acceptance of the Virgin Birth is a matter for speculation. But I wouldn't attribute all of Augustine's attitudes on Matthew or Luke.

Luke says that because the Holy Spirit conceived him, he was holy. You can read Augustine into this and say he was holy because no sex was involved. Or you can read other post-NT theology into it and talk about transmission of original sin. But the simplest approach is to take Luke's words straightforwardly: that he was holy because he came from God.

My understanding is that the Virgin Birth, assuming it is true, is like many of Jesus' miracles: a sign. The Logos could certainly take to himself a human born in the usual way. But having God's direct participation in his birth is a sign that he is the Word made flesh.

Matthew's understanding is that it's a fulfillment of prophecy. I realize modern Christians tend to see this as part of a general "proof by prophecy" approach. But that's probably not what Matthew meant. Rather, he probably meant that Jesus came to fulfill God's promises to Israel.

I agree that when you start looking at genetics all kinds of difficult questions begin to arise. (If you want to do that kind of speculation, my favorite is that God used Joseph's genetic material.) But that's probably not helpful for understanding the original meaning.

 

[Righttruth]

I wonder if some Christians consider the virgin birth a bigger deal than others? I mean, do some Christians find it to be central to their faith, more important than the resurrection, while others don't?

Papias

Yes, resurrection was possible because of holy birth. There is no question of one being greater than the other. Without the first the second would not have occured.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Only Gospel books (Matthew and Luke) mention about virgin birth of Jesus—a profound and sublime belief of a true believer in Jesus Christ. It was prophesized by Isaiah. We don’t find the mention of this miraculous and exalting birth anywhere else in the NT.

Unfortunately, Paul, the only one to mention of His birth, appears to sound that it is an ordinary one! The only well-known religious leader to record about virgin birth happens to be Mohammed in Koran!

Are we not unduly giving full importance to one rank outsider and totally disregarding another?

No.
How many Gospel explicit references and prophesies do we need before we should believe something is true?
Is God very plainly revealing it as a Truth not enough?
It's not like traditional Christianity holds to only beliefs that are plainly revealed. So why question one that is?

And it fits the rest of the story. We inherit our fallen nature from our parents who got theirs from our ancestors, who all got theirs from Adam and Eve. That is the way things are now, were in the time of Mary and from after the Fall. For the Son God to become one of us, to be a perfect example of a human, He could not inherit that corrupted nature from the only human involved in His becoming a Man. So either that nature needs to be absent in His Mother (God is with you, highly favored, blessed among women) or God Supernaturally preserves Him from that inheritance by some other means (all things possible).
The traditional explanations for how Jesus does not inherit our fallen nature is supported by both the purity expressed in a "virgin birth" and also the angels greeting to Mary, which is also all a part of the belief in Her Immaculate Conception that some of us traditional Christians hold. God preserving His Mother Mary through Grace from that fallen nature for Him to be born to us in this manner, the Perfect Lamb of God. And all of this being thoughts we should think Christians would NOT wonder at, that God would see it fitting His Son be born without blemish.

 

[Righttruth]

No.
How many Gospel explicit references and prophesies do we need before we should believe something is true?
Is God very plainly revealing it as a Truth not enough?
It's not like traditional Christianity holds to only beliefs that are plainly revealed. So why question one that is?

And it fits the rest of the story. We inherit our fallen nature from our parents who got theirs from our ancestors, who all got theirs from Adam and Eve. That is the way things are now, were in the time of Mary and from after the Fall. For the Son God to become one of us, to be a perfect example of a human, He could not inherit that corrupted nature from the only human involved in His becoming a Man. So either that nature needs to be absent in His Mother (God is with you, highly favored, blessed among women) or God Supernaturally preserves Him from that inheritance by some other means (all things possible).
The traditional explanations for how Jesus does not inherit our fallen nature is supported by both the purity expressed in a "virgin birth" and also the angels greeting to Mary, which is also all a part of the belief in Her Immaculate Conception that some of us traditional Christians hold. God preserving His Mother Mary through Grace from that fallen nature for Him to be born to us in this manner, the Perfect Lamb of God. And all of this being thoughts we should think Christians would NOT wonder at, that God would see it fitting His Son be born without blemish.

My objection is downplaying the miraculous virgin birth as can by seen by Paul's verse.

 

[Papias]

or God Supernaturally preserves Him from that inheritance by some other means (all things possible).

But that doesn't make the virgin birth make any more sense than the other questions in posts #4, 6 and 8.

Because if God can purify Jesus from cellular sin supernaturally after virgin conception, as you state, why would a virgin birth be needed at all?

He could have purified Jesus at 6 months in the pregnancy, or just before birth, or 6 months after birth, or when Jesus was 8 years old. In all of those cases, Jesus could have been conceived normally, being Joseph's son (matching the different lineages given in Luke and Matthew, which are both through Joseph).

So it seems that divine purity from "flesh sin" (which doesn't seem just in itself) can't be the reason for that two gospels describe a virgin birth.

No.
How many Gospel explicit references and prophesies do we need before we should believe something is true?

What gospel references besides the ones already listed are you referring to?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

My understanding is that the Virgin Birth, assuming it is true, is like many of Jesus' miracles: a sign. The Logos could certainly take to himself a human born in the usual way. But having God's direct participation in his birth is a sign that he is the Word made flesh.

This raises an interesting question - why? Why have a virgin birth for Jesus? As mentioned above, it wasn't needed for "sin" reasons.

Was it done as a "sign", like the many miracles in John done to prove that Jesus is God (the opposite of the other three gospels, where Jesus explicitly refuses to do them for that reason)? But a "sign" doesn't really work either, since there is nothing to see. After all, who could have known back then exactly what Mary was doing every minute of every day 4 months ago?

Perhaps a good reason was because many famous people back then were expected to have a virgin birth from the gods. That was true of Roman/Greek heroes like Romulus, perseus, Hercules, Dionysus, kings like Theseus, many Egyptian pharaohs, and even Alexander the Great. Maybe, if Christians were to gain followers, God knew that Jesus too would have to have been said to be virgin/divinely born, to be taken seriously?

After that, the Isaiah verse could be used, even though it really isn't a prophecy of a virgin birth.

I agree that when you start looking at genetics all kinds of difficult questions begin to arise. (If you want to do that kind of speculation, my favorite is that God used Joseph's genetic material.) But that's probably not helpful for understanding the original meaning.

Yes. As Jack pointed out, people back then thought that the man's DNA was everything and didn't know about the woman's egg. It sounds like Jesus looked like Mary and Joseph (mk 6 and Mt 13), suggesting he had DNA like them or similar to them. Now, if God made all his DNA from scratch, then he could have looked like anything. You mentioned doing the virgin birth as a sign - but if a sign was desired, and one is making the DNA from scratch anyway, why not have, say, gold skin (and eyes like gemstones, reflecting the ark of the covenant, which he is replacing), or glowing eyes, or 4 arms (like Hindu gods)?

If one is making the DNA from scratch, then even if it is to look like a human, why make Jesus look like a child of Joseph and Mary? Since he represents all humans, why not make him a racial mix of caucasian, African, Australian, Native American, Chinese, Indian? Or maybe just, say, Australian aborigine, to emphasize that all races are included in God's plan?

After all, if he's not the normal biological child of Joseph and Mary, why make him look exactly as if he was the normal biological child of Joseph and Mary? Is that dishonest?

On the other hand, if he had half Mary's DNA and half that God made, then all the questions above still apply (you can still have gold skin from the God half), and other problems come up too.

All human DNA has all kinds of imperfect stuff, like thousands of broken, defective gene carcasses (pseudogenes), transposons (the DNA equivalent of chain letters), ERV (virus carcasses from past infections), and so more. So Mary's DNA would have had all that, plus any genetic defects that we all have a few of. So would God have "fixed" those in Jesus? If so, then a good chunk - more than 20% - of Mary's DNA would have been deleted. Would Jesus have been "fully human" if he didn't have all that? But if he did, it doesn't seem that Jesus was "perfect".

Jesus would have to have had Mary's mitochondrial (mt) DNA, and thus her specific haplotype. Does that mean that the haplotype Jesus had was "special"? Are people with that halplotype more "blessed"? Or did God make all new mt DNA for him? In which case all the earlier questions apply again - including the fact that human mt function is not "perfect".

????????????

In Christ-

Papias

 

[hedrick]

Was it done as a "sign", like the many miracles in John done to prove that Jesus is God (the opposite of the other three gospels, where Jesus explicitly refuses to do them for that reason)?

I think it's a mistake to see a sign as a proof. God can do a miracle in anyone's life. And in the 1st Cent there were plenty of miracle-workers. A sign is simply a sign. It points to and emphasizes, but it's not a proof.

I'm not clear whether CF rules permit more specific discussion of the OP, so I'm staying away from an actual examination of NT evidence. I'm simply looking at the significant under the assumption that it's true.

One argument for involving Joseph is that Jesus is the son of David "according to the flesh." Both Matthew and Luke trace the Davidic descent to Joseph. Mary is a relative of Elizabeth, who is from Levi and thus not Davidic. (This is not a fool-proof argument, since we don't know how close a relative, but Matthew and David both citing Joseph seems pretty clear.) Whether Paul's "according to the flesh" can reasonably be understood as a reference to Jesus' DNA I leave to you, but it's the most plausible explanation I can think of that still accepts the Virgin Birth. In my opinion special divine DNA, e.g. golden skin, would not be consistent with Jesus' full humanity. That's required both by the NT and Chalcedon.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My objection is downplaying the miraculous virgin birth as can by seen by Paul's verse.

Does anyone "downplay" there having been a "Lord's Supper" because Saint John does not mention it?

Does anyone downplay Jesus having a childhood or parents or birth since Saint Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, and Saint John (who should have the most detail on the matter) just shows Him appearing full grown?

I suppose one could and am sure some people have done exactly those things. It is not an infrequent charge made by atheist and other folks opposed to Christianity. People frequently take single Scriptures and imagine all sorts of things from it that contradict other Scriptures. Example and a different twist on Saint Paul's alleged influence on the matter: Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth? | The Huffington Post

My point was how does one justify as a Christian excluding or even just challenging a belief simply because some Scripture writers omit or do not emphasize it?

Do we question Him really being born at all since half the Gospels do not even mention it or anything before His midlife? (some have BTW and this would be part of their story/narrative)

And to a certain extent I guess my issue also is, why would any Christian want to "downplay" the coming of our Savior into this world and how that is said to have come to be?
I could see being upset at present consumerism focus of our culture - but that is also a detraction from our Christian faith rather than a reason to question celebrating His Birth.

It has always been difficult for me to accept the notion that the Bible contains everything we need to know as Christians to protect our faith against thoughts/notions that would otherwise be destructive to it. It doesn't and there is plenty of extra Biblical support for our beliefs that can help.

The questions/challenges, like the one presented in the OP, to our faith may seem innocent on the face of it, but they are not. Intentional or unintentional questioning the Virgin Birth and/or aspects of it like the Supernatural Grace imparted...etc., is part of a path toward challenging who one thinks He really was.

I see getting someone on such a path by suggesting the question has merit as assisting those who would challenge His Divinity and/or (usually and) the Trinity. Compound the injury by making the target someone new in their faith, perhaps being taught/knowing only that Scripture alone should be sufficient or even the reasons behind the things they are being taught, it provides an opportunity to rattle their faith. Which is why we should object.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But that doesn't make the virgin birth make any more sense than the other questions in posts #4, 6 and 8.

Because if God can purify Jesus from cellular sin supernaturally after virgin conception, as you state, why would a virgin birth be needed at all?

He could have purified Jesus at 6 months in the pregnancy, or just before birth, or 6 months after birth, or when Jesus was 8 years old. In all of those cases, Jesus could have been conceived normally, being Joseph's son (matching the different lineages given in Luke and Matthew, which are both through Joseph).

So it seems that divine purity from "flesh sin" (which doesn't seem just in itself) can't be the reason for that two gospels describe a virgin birth.



What gospel references besides the ones already listed are you referring to?

In Christ-

Papias

Adding - BTW - equating my response to another poster the fact that the Virgin Birth "fits" with other teachings of the Churches as my stating that is "the reason" for the Gospel narrative about there being a Virgin is not accurate. There are indeed many reasons, including fulfilling what God said would be from the beginning.

Asking what is possible and could God have done X, we often have to answer yes He could have because He has the ability. Acknowledging His Having the ability and then asking would He or why wouldn't He are not the same thing. So sure He could have done all sorts of things, including erasing humanity and starting over.

The fact He did not provide the Lamb any other way is supported by our faith in the validity of the Scriptures - attested to by the Gospel stories and the prophecies those stories fulfilled, the Traditions of the Church and the writings of early Christians. The manner in which it was done also supports our faith in many other aspects about the Nature of God and the Nature/nature of Jesus. As such, questioning those beliefs regarding His Birth can undermine all those beliefs.

The manner chosen to preserve that Lamb from our fallen nature (another a fundamental belief) attest to Whom the Father (Supernatural and natural father) is (not Joseph), which supports His Divinity. Ditto with having the Virgin involved attesting to His human nature, that He planned all this from the Beginning....etc., It all goes together and each element supports many others. Trying to challenge a single element of the Gospel story without unraveling other fundamentals of our faith is just not possible.

What other Gospels you asked. Their are four, two of which begin with Jesus at midlife with no mention of anything prior - do we then question God suddenly just appeared as a full grown man?
(some have BTW and use the omission as part of the support for that belief)

The OP presents a question which supports the challenging of a fundamental belief in Christianity by suggesting having only two Gospel references giving the account and a major NT writer not emphasizing it as anything but "normal" as a reason for doubting it as being true. So my natural instinctive response was to ask how many Gospel references does a Christian require before a holding onto a fundamental belief presented there?