Virgin birth of Jesus and its acknowledgement

[hedrick]

The passage is emphasizing his similarity to Paul: born as a human under the law to redeem those born under the law. There was obviously no need to say that the people he was redeeming were born as humans.

In the NT we have Luke 7:28 with similar language.

 

[Hank77]

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.

This belief is not because of Augustine or because of the lack of scientific knowledge, it is because of what the Bible says about the transmission of the sin nature from the father to his children.

 

[Hank77]

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.

Jesus being the only Begotten son of God.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus being the only Begotten son of God.

Don't hang too much theological significance on a misleading KJV translation.

 

[ewq1938]

Don't hang too much theological significance on a misleading KJV translation.

It's not misleading in the slightest. That is exactly what is written in the Greek.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child).

 

[Papias]

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?

No, it doesn't.
Could you please be more clear?
Catholics understand that we need not all be in perfect agreement, and if you think anything I've written violates Catholic doctrine, please let me know.

Do you or do you not think I'm a Catholic?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Hank77]

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?

Paul could of been thinking of the statement made by God in Genesis. That would be my guess. It is not the only place where Paul refers to Adam and Eve.

Gen 3:15 and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee--the head, and thou dost bruise him--the heel.'

imho, this is one of the strongest verses in support of the virgin birth.

 

[Hank77]

Don't hang too much theological significance on a misleading KJV translation.

Young's Literal Translation
Joh 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

 

[Hank77]

Don't hang too much theological significance on a misleading KJV translation.

Abraham being willing to sacrifice his own son and Issac co-operating with his father's will is a type of the Father giving His own son and the Son being willing to co-operate with His father's will.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, it doesn't.
Could you please be more clear?
Catholics understand that we need not all be in perfect agreement, and if you think anything I've written violates Catholic doctrine, please let me know.

Do you or do you not think I'm a Catholic?

In Christ-

Papias

No clue really. What else can I say as there are no clues that would make it evident in this thread other than the self identification.

Catholics are not free to disagree about there being a Virgin Birth or Saint Paul's Apostleship, along with a whole host of other things. We do not get to pick and choose among such things or just agree to disagree. Other things yes.

You tell me. I have no clue what you believe on either of the two points we have beat to death here. Can say nothing recalled posted here indicates your support of either. Put another way, if not for your self identification I would not suspect you were Catholic based on anything in this thread.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The passage is emphasizing his similarity to Paul: born as a human under the law to redeem those born under the law. There was obviously no need to say that the people he was redeeming were born as humans.

In the NT we have Luke 7:28 with similar language.

That came from left field. Who ever said or thought he was talking about the people he was redeeming in Galations?

He was talking about the Virgin Birth. If either Saint Paul did not believe in or the people hearing him were ignorant of the claim of a Virgin Birth, then there would be no need for defending His humanity. An ordinary birth does not place doubt on His humanity. Of course a baby from an "ordinary" birth would be human - it does not need to said at all. A claim of a Virgin birth would - as it would call in question whether or not He could be Samaritan for example - the bastard child of Mary and a Samaritan (as opposed to Joseph - a Jew. The claim of a Virgin Birth begs the question whose the daddy/Daddy. Saint Paul in his choice of words is enforcing that He had no human father using the phrase identical to the prophets predicting that He would be "made of woman". None of this language is possible absent a belief held by Christians in a Virgin Birth. Read any Protestant concordance on the matter if you don't want to accept a Catholics word on this.

No. Just like your prior reference to Job failed, Luke in this case speaks of the Baptizer as being the greatest of those "born of women" which is distinctly different than the language Saint Paul was careful to use - which is the SAME language of prophecy regarding a Virgin Birth - "made of a woman".

BTW for anyone keeping track of Gospel/NT support of the belief, Luke 7:28 is another veiled reference to the Virgin Birth as it clearly excludes Jesus from being a member of those "born of women". And that would be because He is "made of woman" obviously not the same as and seen as distinct from being "born of women".

 

[hedrick]

Monogenes means simply "only child." It's the ordinary term, used in passages such as Luke 7:12, 8:42.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Paul could of been thinking of the statement made by God in Genesis. That would be my guess. It is not the only place where Paul refers to Adam and Eve.

Gen 3:15 and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee--the head, and thou dost bruise him--the heel.'

imho, this is one of the strongest verses in support of the virgin birth.

Look at cross references to Gal 4:4 - specifically the phrasing "made of woman" as opposed to "born of". Every cross reference to that phrasing is a prophecy about a Virgin Birth. To suggest Saint Paul, an educated Jew, would use that precise same phrase and be ignorant of the OT significance of it is not just unlikely, it beyond believable.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Monogenes means simply "only child." It's the ordinary term, used in passages such as Luke 7:12, 8:42.

What the point?
That still not the language of prophets and Gal 4 regarding a Virgin Birth. Are you suggesting Saint Paul would be ignorant of those prophecies?

 

[hedrick]

What the point?
That still not the language of prophets and Gal 4 regarding a Virgin Birth. Are you suggesting Saint Paul would be ignorant of those prophecies?

No. Someone referred to "begotten" in John 3:16 as if the term had some special theological significance. I'm not making any particular argument about Paul with that correction. I'm just pointing out that he was referring to a misleading translation. Even NIV translates "one and only" and not "only begotten."

I'm quite sure Paul know about Is 7:14. Whether he knew it in Greek or Hebrew is less clear. I'd guess if he studied under Gamaliel he probably knew the Bible in Hebrew. In that case it's not clear that he would have considered Is 7:14 to have anything to do with a virgin.

 

[hedrick]

I feel like I’ve gone through the looking glass with some of the exegesis in this thread. Here’s Gal 4:3-5:

“So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spiritsa of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.”

This has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. God sent Jesus as a man under the law to redeem other men under the law.

 

[Hank77]

Look at cross references to Gal 4:4 - specifically the phrasing "made of woman" as opposed to "born of". Every cross reference to that phrasing is a prophecy about a Virgin Birth. To suggest Saint Paul, an educated Jew, would use that precise same phrase and be ignorant of the OT significance of it is not just unlikely, it beyond believable.

Ginomai, the Greek word translated as 'made' in the KJV and as 'come' in the YLT, is a very interesting word and is much more descriptive than either of the English words can describe. It is was 671 times.

Here are a few word studies of this Greek word. I have put some in bold that I find particularly descriptive and relevant to this scripture.

1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).

Strong's Greek: 1096. γίνομαι (ginomai) -- to come into being, to happen, to become

 

[Hank77]

Monogenes means simply "only child." It's the ordinary term, used in passages such as Luke 7:12, 8:42.

That was my point. It says that He is God's only, one and only, Son. Not Joseph's son or anyone else's son.
God's one and only Son. So He is different than God's adopted children, us. There is only one who is God's one and only Son, He is unique in His relationship to God.

3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I feel like I’ve gone through the looking glass with some of the exegesis in this thread. Here’s Gal 4:3-5:

“So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spiritsa of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.”

This has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. God sent Jesus as a man under the law to redeem other men under the law.

Well one would have to be selective in translations to get the more familiar wording of "born of woman" which speaking of exegesis would then make jibberish of the prior verse you used in Luke regarding the distinction of the Baptizer and Jesus. I prefer the rendering "come of woman" or "made of woman" (which agrees with the far older latin)

Am not sure what your credentials for "exegesis" are, mine are as a hack. But obviously from reading simple concordances and text commentary available online to all of us, there are many qualified in exegesis that disagree with your position.

 

[hedrick]

Am not sure what your credentials for "exegesis" are, mine are as a hack. But obviously from reading simple concordances and text commentary available online to all of us, there are many qualified in exegesis that disagree with your position.

I have several commentary series. I normally check passages with a couple of them. However mine are all modern critical commentaries. I have a feeling some of what I'm seeing here is traditional exegesis. Not an approach I'm familiar with or interested in. I actually think it's more likely that Rom 1:3 contradicts the Virgin Birth than that Gal 4 asserts it. But both are unlikely, in my view. If you really want to go in left field, I've seen assertions that 1 Tim 1:4 is an explicit rejection of the Virgin Birth. But the most likely is that Paul simply doesn't mention it.