Virgin birth of Jesus and its acknowledgement

[hedrick]

Example and a different twist on Saint Paul's alleged influence on the matter: Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth? | The Huffington Post

Gaack. This argues that the Virgin Birth comes from Paul because Paul supports preexistence. A more common position would be that the virgin birth and preexistence are actually separate ways of understanding the significance of Son of God. Not necessarily contradictory, but certainly not one developing from the other. I also think the idea of Paul being the source of the Virgin Birth is inconsistent with Rom 1:3.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Gaack. This argues that the Virgin Birth comes from Paul because Paul supports preexistence. A more common position would be that the virgin birth and preexistence are actually separate ways of understanding the significance of Son of God. Not necessarily contradictory, but certainly not one developing from the other. I also think the idea of Paul being the source of the Virgin Birth is inconsistent with Rom 1:3.

No wonder I called it a "different twist" (different in comparison with the twist of Paul's assumed view in the OP).

 

[Righttruth]

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

John's spiritual significance of the Last Supper is in John 6. Communion signifies it, not a ritual started by Paul to proclaim His death!

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?

That is not the point of the thread.

Example and a different twist on Saint Paul's alleged influence on the matter: Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth? | The Huffington Post

A typical tendency to defend and promote Paul by hook or by crook methods!

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?

I am not concerned with exclusion. I am concerned with the way Paul speaks about Jesus' birth.

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.

Virgin birth is a profound concept for believers in Jesus. Commercial techniques don't bother on those things. Paul's limited agenda to reach out Gentiles specifically, probably, led to such downplaying effort.

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.

The virgin birth is not being questioned in the OP, rather its absence of acknowledgement by Paul.

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.

Of course, the OP is not addressed to new believers.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

John's spiritual significance of the Last Supper is in John 6. Communion signifies it, not a ritual started by Paul to proclaim His death!



That is not the point of the thread.



A typical tendency to defend and promote Paul by hook or by crook methods!



I am not concerned with exclusion. I am concerned with the way Paul speaks about Jesus' birth.



Virgin birth is a profound concept for believers in Jesus. Commercial techniques don't bother on those things. Paul's limited agenda to reach out Gentiles specifically, probably, led to such downplaying effort.



The virgin birth is not being questioned in the OP, rather its absence of acknowledgement by Paul.



Of course, the OP is not addressed to new believers.

The OP makes a point of noting that not all Gospels record a birth of Jesus. So asking if we should then question other such omissions by one or more Gospel writers seems very relevant. Such questioning would be using the exact same logic - that the omission implies something about the validity teaching.

Am not the one promoting a twist on Saint Paul's message as the OP does. Just pointed out others have made a twist the other way using the same writer. It is a twist to make either assumption.

Am not sure the OP reflects a concern for anything other than wanting to create concern on whether the traditional teaching of a Virgin Birth is accurate or not.

Unclear how to now deny the OP questions a Virgin Birth when it ends this way:

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

The implication of closing the OP that way seems clear. The assumption is that Saint Paul's failure to mention a Virgin means he taught an "ordinary" birth and also that Islam's teaching on a virgin would be having the traditional view give an "outsider" more weight than Saint Paul. If that is not a clear invitation to question the validity of the teaching clearly presented in two Gospel testimonies am not sure what is.

 

[hedrick]

Virgin birth is a profound concept for believers in Jesus. Commercial techniques don't bother on those things. Paul's limited agenda to reach out Gentiles specifically, probably, led to such downplaying effort.

Virgin birth was perfectly understandable to Gentile culture. There were others for whom it was claimed.

Paul failed to mention lots of things about Jesus that we find in the Gospels. This is just one of many. There's no need to assume that he had a specific reason for excluding this one.

More likely, Paul had specific descriptions that he preferred, the Second Adam and the preexistent agent of creation.

The most problematical statement in Paul, in my view, is Rom 1:3. The problem with it is that it emphasizes Davidic descent "according to the flesh." Yet the Davidic descent comes through Joseph in both Matthew and Luke. I see no sign that Paul had this issue in mind when he wrote the phrase, but it's still something to think about. One could regard "according to the flesh" as meaning simply "in human terms," which could include adoption. It seems like an odd choice of words in this context, but even scholars who reject the Virgin Birth don't think Paul is clearly rejecting it here (though some people writing at the popular level do).

 

[Righttruth]

The OP makes a point of noting that not all Gospels record a birth of Jesus. So asking if we should then question other such omissions by one or more Gospel writers seems very relevant. Such questioning would be using the exact same logic - that the omission implies something about the validity teaching.

If Paul had omitted conception of Jesus, this questioning would not have arised.

Am not the one promoting a twist on Saint Paul's message as the OP does. Just pointed out others have made a twist the other way using the same writer. It is a twist to make either assumption.

Omission is not a twist. Perhaps, being taken for granted. But mentioning that in an ordinary way is bound rise alarm!

Am not sure the OP reflects a concern for anything other than wanting to create concern on whether the traditional teaching of a Virgin Birth is accurate or not.

Just the opposite. Virgin birth need to be mentioned with all solemnity.

Unclear how to now deny the OP questions a Virgin Birth when it ends this way:The implication of closing the OP that way seems clear. The assumption is that Saint Paul's failure to mention a Virgin means he taught an "ordinary" birth and also that Islam's teaching on a virgin would be having the traditional view give an "outsider" more weight than Saint Paul. If that is not a clear invitation to question the validity of the teaching clearly presented in two Gospel testimonies am not sure what is.

No, the point is how Paul can miss out such an important belief when Mohammed mentions that. Then why is that Paul is accepted in totality whereas Mohammed is rejected also in totality?

 

[Righttruth]

Virgin birth was perfectly understandable to Gentile culture. There were others for whom it was claimed.

Paul failed to mention lots of things about Jesus that we find in the Gospels. This is just one of many. There's no need to assume that he had a specific reason for excluding this one.

More likely, Paul had specific descriptions that he preferred, the Second Adam and the preexistent agent of creation.

The most problematical statement in Paul, in my view, is Rom 1:3. The problem with it is that it emphasizes Davidic descent "according to the flesh." Yet the Davidic descent comes through Joseph in both Matthew and Luke. I see no sign that Paul had this issue in mind when he wrote the phrase, but it's still something to think about. One could regard "according to the flesh" as meaning simply "in human terms," which could include adoption. It seems like an odd choice of words in this context, but even scholars who reject the Virgin Birth don't think Paul is clearly rejecting it here (though some people writing at the popular level do).

I always see people defending Paul at any cost. My thinking is that whether he really believed virgin birth in the first place!

 

[Papias]

What other Gospels you asked. ....

The OP presents a question ..... having only two Gospel references giving the account and a major NT writer not emphasizing it as anything but "normal"

I'm not speculating about the OP's motives. The OP listed a couple NT references to the virgin birth, and said that this is all we have showing a virgin birth.

You replied "No." - that we have more NT references to a virgin birth.

Regardless of what anyone's motives may or may not be, I simply asked you to back up your claim. I simply asked which NT verses you were referring to which also showed a virgin birth - in addition to those the OP mentioned.

It's pretty simple. Which were you referring to?

Do you have others in mind?

If so, it's quite reasonable to ask which you mean.

If not, then why are you claiming they exist if you don't think they do?

Help me out here? Thanks-

In Christ -

Papias

 

[DrBubbaLove]

If Paul had omitted conception of Jesus, this questioning would not have arised.



Omission is not a twist. Perhaps, being taken for granted. But mentioning that in an ordinary way is bound rise alarm!



Just the opposite. Virgin birth need to be mentioned with all solemnity.




No, the point is how Paul can miss out such an important belief when Mohammed mentions that. Then why is that Paul is accepted in totality whereas Mohammed is rejected also in totality?

Missed my point.
Not only does Paul talk about the birth of Jesus in terms that support a Virgin birth and in a manner that would be considered very odd word usage/phrasing if he did not believe in it, he is a close traveling companion of one of the two Gospel writers that explicitly mention it. To suggest someone as vocal as Saint Paul about defending truth would fail to object to a belief that was obviously commonly held also further supports his approval. Omission of explicit reference also does not have to only mean disapproval or unbelief. It could simply mean such a fundamental truth was common knowledge in that era among believers - as well as being known to non-believers as a claim of these upstart Christians.

So asking as the OP did that in believing in a Virgin Birth we are giving credence to a belief of an outsider who comes along half a millennium later over that of Saint Paul is indeed twisting what that Apostle wrote. Just as the text in the link I gave twists it the other way - that Saint Paul invented the idea of a Virgin Birth and use his writing to demonstrate that Saint Paul held the belief in order to twist the story into saying that he made it up. They could not make such a claim if his writing gave no support for the belief.

But now that we have exchanged posts on this, am beginning to wonder if this thread is mislabeled, not about Virgin Birth at all but about rejecting Saint Paul as a true Apostle and so rejecting some or all of his message.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm not speculating about the OP's motives. The OP listed a couple NT references to the virgin birth, and said that this is all we have showing a virgin birth.

You replied "No." - that we have more NT references to a virgin birth.

Regardless of what anyone's motives may or may not be, I simply asked you to back up your claim. I simply asked which NT verses you were referring to which also showed a virgin birth - in addition to those the OP mentioned.

It's pretty simple. Which were you referring to?

Do you have others in mind?

If so, it's quite reasonable to ask which you mean.

If not, then why are you claiming they exist if you don't think they do?

Help me out here? Thanks-

In Christ -

Papias

Correct, we never really know the motives of people mis-characterizing what other people post or the motives of someone presenting themselves as Catholic while seemingly questioning a belief in the Virgin Birth. Just like we cannot guess the motive of a question; is it being asked out of ignorance or as a personal attack.

My "NO." was in answer to the OP's question: do we give deference to rank outsider (Mohamed) over the OP's opinion that Saint Paul did not hold to a belief in the Virgin Birth? Again, NO.

The OP cites two Gospel references and given the title, I assumed the OPs issue (and now apparently yours) given the closing question of the OP, was with the belief. So my then asking how many Gospel references does one need before accept a belief is not a declaration that there are more Gospel references to the Virgin Birth. So your repeated question to that point is disingenuous at best.


Given I posted a link to a common atheist/non-believer claim that Saint Paul made up the Virgin Birth, obviously am not alone in following the Church's teaching that his writing does indeed support it. The unbelievers even quote his writing to make the point. Saint Paul did not write a Gospel BTW. And in case this is still unclear to some Catholics, the Church's view is contrary to the OP's suggestion that Saint Paul did not hold such a belief. A Catholic has lots of resources on this matter if really ignorant of NT support of the belief.

It now seems rather apparent the OP's post is meant to question the Apostlic claim of Saint Paul and thereby perhaps cast doubt on other points he did emphasize. So yes, in responding to the defense of a Virgin Birth, as any Catholic should, I was mistaken on the OP's point. But am not going to apologize for being Catholic or defending the Mother of God.

 

[Papias]

My "NO." was in answer to the OP's question: do we give deference to rank outsider (Mohamed) over the OP's opinion that Saint Paul did not hold to a belief in the Virgin Birth? Again, NO.

I didn't read his OP as an attack - and that's not the topic of my question to you.

So, do you agree that there are no NT references to the Virgin besides the two listed in the OP? That's all I asked.

Thanks-

Papias

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I didn't read his OP as an attack - and that's not the topic of my question to you.

So, do you agree that there are no NT references to the Virgin besides the two listed in the OP? That's all I asked.

Thanks-

Papias

No, it is not even apparent we agree on what being Catholic means or what claiming Catholic faith in CF means or even whether there was a Virgin Birth.

Even the atheist give Gal 4 as an example and that also in the link I gave. That letter alone is accepted as Saint Paul endorsing the belief by both atheist and Catholics, as well as his choice of traveling companions and other statements he made. Tradition has it he was a bit of a hot head, Catholic tradition that is. Same tradition has him recorded in Scripture refusing to travel with some others over differences in beliefs and he is shown nearly causing a brawl at the first Church council over beliefs. So to imagine he would be silent about something it is alleged he did not believe simply because he was not explicit about it, dishonors what we know to be true about the man.

As is the life and writings of Saint John, who would have heard the story repeated first hand throughout his life without ever objecting - again Catholic tradition. As is the life and testimony of the ECFs coming right after testifying to what they were taught about a Virgin Birth and the complete absence of ANY Apostle objecting. But that last would be principally a Catholic thing for support also - at least for the solo crowd.

 

[Papias]

No, it is not even apparent we agree on what being Catholic means or what claiming Catholic faith in CF means or even whether there was a Virgin Birth.

That's all fine, but that's not what I asked. I didn't ask you about catholic tradition nor about what whoever may have heard growing up.

You sounded like you claimed there were other verses in the NT showing the virgin birth. I simply asked what you meant.

So, do you agree that there are no NT references to the Virgin besides the two listed in the OP?

That's all I asked. I don't see why this is hard. If there are't any, then why not just say so? If there are, then please list them. Easy either way, right?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That's all fine, but that's not what I asked. I didn't ask you about catholic tradition nor about what whoever may have heard growing up.

You sounded like you claimed there were other verses in the NT showing the virgin birth. I simply asked what you meant.

So, do you agree that there are no NT references to the Virgin besides the two listed in the OP?

That's all I asked. I don't see why this is hard. If there are't any, then why not just say so? If there are, then please list them. Easy either way, right?

Thanks-

Papias

What would be hard about Gal 4 or tradition for a Catholic? That is all I asked..
Thanks I guess.

 

[Papias]

What would be hard about Gal 4 or tradition for a Catholic? That is all I asked..
Thanks I guess.

Gal 4 says:

God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.​

That obviously doesn't state it was a virgin birth

or tradition for a Catholic?

Which isn't an NT verse.

OK, so it sounds like you can't support your apparent claim of having an NT verse with an actual NT verse.

So there are no New Testament verses that state a virgin birth aside from the two sections given in the OP.

Best-

Papias

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Gal 4 says:

God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.​

That obviously doesn't state it was a virgin birth



Which isn't an NT verse.

OK, so it sounds like you can't support your apparent claim of having an NT verse with an actual NT verse.

So there are no New Testament verses that state a virgin birth aside from the two sections given in the OP.

Best-

Papias

Ah, so now we restrict the question to an explicit reference - which goes far beyond my original post that drove these repeated questions and false claims about what I did post. I never claimed there were other explicit NT references. The point I repeatedly make is that it is not at all clear from his writings, apparently even to some atheist, that Saint Paul did not believe in a Virgin Mother of God.

Of course why bother believing at all if the Gospel explicit references are insufficient. But that was not the OP's point anyway - which I already admitted misunderstanding the OP point and my post reflected that misunderstanding. The OP is actually making a misguided indirect attack on Saint Paul based on the opinion that he did not hold this belief. An opinion no Catholic holds and obviously even some atheist do not believe based on both on what Saint Paul did write and what he did not (no objection).

According to the teachings of Catholics and even those of some atheist, Gal 4 does indeed support Saint Paul holding belief in the Virgin Birth. And that teaching alluded to by my posting in this thread that the phraseology is very odd absent the belief - some have even said problematic absent the belief. That a person would continue to goad or object to something even an atheist would attest to about Saint Paul holding this belief is decidedly not Catholic.

Thanks again for helping me make that point.

 

[Papias]

That a person would continue to goad or object to something even an atheist would attest to about Saint Paul holding this belief is decidedly not Catholic.

I wasn't goading, I was simply asking you to be clear about the NT verses.

With the above, are you, or are you not, suggesting that I'm not Catholic?

If not, then what exactly do you mean by the above?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[hedrick]

According to the teachings of Catholics and even those of some atheist, Gal 4 does indeed support Saint Paul holding belief in the Virgin Birth.

Not likely. Apparently "born of a woman" was standard Jewish language to emphasize humanity. E.g. Job 14:1. Also the context is emphasizing the Jesus was a normal Jew. Putting the Virgin Birth in that context would be unlikely.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I wasn't goading, I was simply asking you to be clear about the NT verses.

With the above, are you, or are you not, suggesting that I'm not Catholic?

If not, then what exactly do you mean by the above?

In Christ-

Papias

Repeatedly mischaracterizing and falsely claiming something was posted is not simply seeking clarification.

As I see this thread now and absent my wrongly motivated jump to rightfully defend the Queen of Heaven, there are only two sides. One questioning the beliefs of and in doing so the Apostleship of Saint Paul, the other defending it.

I don't know you but can see the self identification as Catholic. What I don't see is any of your post on the Catholic side of those two positions in this thread, if that is what you are asking. Does that answer your question?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not likely. Apparently "born of a woman" was standard Jewish language to emphasize humanity. E.g. Job 14:1. Also the context is emphasizing the Jesus was a normal Jew. Putting the Virgin Birth in that context would be unlikely.

Think about that statement and the OP's opinion.
Why would anyone supposedly believing Jesus birth was "normal" or "ordinary" have any need to emphasize His humanity?
And if it was indeed believed to have been an "ordinary" conception/birth then what sense would it make to emphasize only the woman when "born of man" would suffice?
No.
We cannot say it is unlikely. If anything the suggestion of your post is not just less likely but makes no sense. That it is a very awkward/odd phrasing absent the belief is precisely the reason so many Protestant and Catholic theologians give that very verse for proof Saint Paul held that belief. Same reason the atheist latch onto that verse to suggest a "non-witness" to the actual birth actually made up the Virgin birth later and that it was Saint Paul who created the myth of a God-Man.

If those understandings were "unlikely" as you suggest then none of those teachings or the atheist claims about Saint Paul would hold water.

Job 14 says using the Hebrew translated as "born of a woman", which I agree Job is clearly referencing an "ordinary" birth of "all men".
Saint Paul specifically, and obviously intentionally, used the phrase "made of a woman". Common idiom - yeah for "made of a woman" see all the Biblical cross references to virgin birth, especially OT prophecy of a Virgin Birth to which Saint Paul being a well educated Jew in using similar language to those prophecies could only be seen as alluding to them in choosing his wording in Gal 4 - to that of a virgin birth. See NO cross references with similar language to any "ordinary" birth.

Further ask your self why a Jew of "ordinary" birth to two Jews, would need a statement emphasizing that the result was a Jew (or human)?

Interesting that you brought that up given those familiar with the claims about His Birth in those days and not believing those claims suggested to His Face that He was a bastard child. There would be no basis for making such a charge unless it was true and known by those taunting Him that there was a belief that Joseph was NOT His biological father.
BTW and since I mention it and as some apparently think there is no such support, that would be another indirect reference to the Virgin Birth in the Gospels.