Virgin birth of Jesus and its acknowledgement

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can agree that both trashing Saint Paul's Apostleship and the Virgin Birth are apparently popular and relatively modern critiques in some circles and apparently both gaining in popularity since the 1500s. Periodic questioning of either occurs I think as far back as first century, but I agree nothing like the popularity of it now.

Catholic or otherwise, that opinion is not as yet anywhere near any level of consensus among those who are more knowledgeable than me on such things. I know the Churches position will never change on this and that is good enough for me.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟154,410.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

When Paul had the opportunity to record the conception of Jesus, he could have brought home such a sublime belief instead of playing to the Gentiles in their own terms that can be understood without the essence of the spiritual aspect of belief.

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.

The point is how an outsider recognized such a sublime aspect whereas Paul made it known indirectly perhaps.

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.

Yes, anything can be done and is being done for the sake of Paul.

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.

The point is how people ignore extremely and important truth just because it is found elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
When Paul had the opportunity to record the conception of Jesus, he could have brought home such a sublime belief instead of playing to the Gentiles in their own terms that can be understood without the essence of the spiritual aspect of belief.
Paul did use sublime terms, just different ones. Paul understood Jesus as being God's son in terms of Jesus as the preexistent agent of creation, being sent as a human into the world. This is roughly the same concept as John's Word made flesh. No one (I hope) would accuse John of insufficiently sublime theology, but he didn't use the concept of Virgin Birth either.
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟154,410.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Paul did use sublime terms, just different ones. Paul understood Jesus as being God's son in terms of Jesus as the preexistent agent of creation, being sent as a human into the world. This is roughly the same concept as John's Word made flesh. No one (I hope) would accuse John of insufficiently sublime theology, but he didn't use the concept of Virgin Birth either.

John did not mention the conception of Jesus whereas Paul did in an ordinary manner.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you really have no clue, then why did you write "decidedly not Catholic", after putting words in my mouth that I didn't say?

Papias
Again, like I said repeatedly, absent your self identification there is nothing about any of your posts that would be a clue that you are Catholic.

Your posts are ambivalent AT BEST on either Saint Paul being an Apostle or the Virgin Birth. The Church is not ambivalent on those points. You have offered opinions for why a belief in the Virgin Birth arose which cast doubt on that truth and offered no defense of that belief that I recall. I see no way to categorize dispersion of doubt on either truth as being aligned with the any form of Catholic Church, which is to say be Catholic.

There are no variations of Catholic faith that do not profess a belief in the Virgin Birth. It is confessed aloud by everyone at every Catholic Mass. If not believed it would mean one is lying on a regular basis in making that confession. Even your claim made in defense of posts made here suggesting one is free as a Catholic to choose/disagree about what one believes, is in itself decidedly not a Catholic claim, at least as it applies to what is being denied in this thread. That some Catholics believe they can pick and choose beliefs and remain aligned with the Church I do not deny. Many are very wrong in that belief.

Back to the OP. Simple yes or no. Saint Paul's claim of being an Apostle valid or not? (can only answer one way or abstain as CF rules currently prevent the non-Catholic answer)
Is the Virgin Birth a truth or not?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Back to the OP. Simple yes or no. Saint Paul's claim of being an Apostle valid or not?

OK, fair enough. Yes - Paul is an apostle. Did I ever dispute that?

Is the Virgin Birth a truth or not?

Again - yes. Did I ever dispute that?

With this kind of dancing around and treating people as heretics, one can't be surprised that there are so many ex-Catholics.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
OK, fair enough. Yes - Paul is an apostle. Did I ever dispute that?



Again - yes. Did I ever dispute that?

With this kind of dancing around and treating people as heretics, one can't be surprised that there are so many ex-Catholics.

In Christ-

Papias
Ambivalent and neutral do not mean dispute. Not sure how anyone could treat a charge of ambivalence as equal to teaching heresy.

I will agree ambivalence of many Catholics and their thinking that is OK with the Church is probably one reason some people leave. In Catholic terms/thinking they are also not really "ex-Catholics" as long as they have not denied Christ. Remaining a Christian would not be an apostate and only a Christian can be a heretic.

In my experience many leaving the Church have either no clue or are very misinformed on what the Church teaches. My thoughts are most of those would not leave if they did know - and not really their fault as much as a failure in having been properly taught. The rich teachings of the Church and the Magisterium are probably the main reason there are so many Protestant converts.

Teachings like why Saint Paul is an Apostle or why a Virgin Birth was necessary and fitting, as well as how it was so. And upon deeper reflection why a Catholic should defend those beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
John did not mention the conception of Jesus whereas Paul did in an ordinary manner.
The question for this thread wasn't whether the Virgin Birth happened but the implications of Paul's non-mention of it. Whether Paul didn't mention it or mentioned the birth in a way that would contradict it is a topic worth discussing, but probably not at CF. But it's irrelevant to the thread.

From the point of view of this thread, I think the point is that Paul is able to have a robust concept of the Incarnation without the Virgin Birth. His concept is close to John's, who also doesn't use the Virgin Birth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Papias
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟154,410.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The question for this thread wasn't whether the Virgin Birth happened but the implications of Paul's non-mention of it. Whether Paul didn't mention it or mentioned the birth in a way that would contradict it is a topic worth discussing, but probably not at CF. But it's irrelevant to the thread.

From the point of view of this thread, I think the point is that Paul is able to have a robust concept of the Incarnation without the Virgin Birth. His concept is close to John's, who also doesn't use the Virgin Birth.

The basic intention is to draw attention to the fact that how people hatefully reject Mohammed totally, but accept all of Paul's without questions!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarysSon

Active Member
Jan 5, 2017
279
50
60
Southern California
✟25,655.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ambivalent and neutral do not mean dispute. Not sure how anyone could treat a charge of ambivalence as equal to teaching heresy.

I will agree ambivalence of many Catholics and their thinking that is OK with the Church is probably one reason some people leave. In Catholic terms/thinking they are also not really "ex-Catholics" as long as they have not denied Christ. Remaining a Christian would not be an apostate and only a Christian can be a heretic.

In my experience many leaving the Church have either no clue or are very misinformed on what the Church teaches. My thoughts are most of those would not leave if they did know - and not really their fault as much as a failure in having been properly taught. The rich teachings of the Church and the Magisterium are probably the main reason there are so many Protestant converts.

Teachings like why Saint Paul is an Apostle or why a Virgin Birth was necessary and fitting, as well as how it was so. And upon deeper reflection why a Catholic should defend those beliefs.

Well said.

I also might add that one cannot truly understand WHY the Virgin Birth was necessary until they understand the OT TYPE that was the Ark of the Covenant - and the NT fulfillment that is Mary, the Ark of the NEW Covenant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?

Your premise is an argument from silence?

Most skeptics actually argue the apostle Paul invented the Virgin birth as the Gospel of Luke was written by a companion of Paul (Luke).

The apostle Paul does not give the accounts of the Miracles Jesus performed. Does that in itself show some sort of disrespect of our Lord's Work during His ministry?
Can you show me where John, Peter, and James mention the Virgin birth?

Are we to assume their silence means something? If so what exactly?

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?

Not true:

Ignatius a.d. 30–107
And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter X.—The reality of Christ’s passion.

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter VI.—Do not accept Judaism.


More:

Virgin birth of Jesus | Theopedia
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The basic intention is to draw attention to the fact that how people hatefully reject Mohammed totally, but accept all of Paul's without questions!

If anyone exhibited hate here towards a religious figure you respect, you can take up matters with the staff.

Is the Qur'an part of your canon or sacred to you? If so this may not be the forum to discuss the views of Muhammad.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
Really?

Saint Paul opens Romans by relating Jesus being foretold of by the prophets. Foretold of what - he goes on - as being a son of David (His humanity) because He was born of the flesh. Every Jew including Saint Paul would know those same prophecies included being born of a Virgin. The writer immediately follows that statement relating His being the Son of God to His spirit. And we are suppose to think it is more likely the Saint was dismissing the Virgin Birth beliefs of his traveling companions in the middle statement rather than making a declaration about Who Jesus is.
What sort of "critical commentary" would make an assertion like that taking a verse out of context to develop an opinion based on what was not said in that reference?
Am not sure how to see such reasoning as not being in the same field as those you claim are in left with similar opinions using 1 Tim 1:4 allegations.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Really?

Saint Paul opens Romans by relating Jesus being foretold of by the prophets. Foretold of what - he goes on - as being a son of David (His humanity) because He was born of the flesh. Every Jew including Saint Paul would know those same prophecies included being born of a Virgin. The writer immediately follows that statement relating His being the Son of God to His spirit. And we are suppose to think it is more likely the Saint was dismissing the Virgin Birth beliefs of his traveling companions in the middle statement rather than making a declaration about Who Jesus is.
What sort of "critical commentary" would make an assertion like that taking a verse out of context to develop an opinion based on what was not said in that reference?
Am not sure how to see such reasoning as not being in the same field as those you claim are in left with similar opinions using 1 Tim 1:4 allegations.

It's the nonsense "argument by silence or omission."

There has to be some conspiracy theory behind every rock. It is the poison of the refuted theologians of the Tubingen school in the 19th century.

It's where we get the hyper textual critics of today.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Your premise is an argument from silence?

Most skeptics actually argue the apostle Paul invented the Virgin birth as the Gospel of Luke was written by a companion of Paul (Luke).
I've seen a variety of skeptics. Skeptics and Christians can be equally out there when they're driven by ideology. But I've never seen a skeptical scholar that I take seriously say that Paul invented the Virgin birth, since the most common view is that he didn't believe it. The most recent popular-level attack I saw was that he specifically denied it, though as I noted above this isn't something I've seen serious critical exegesis maintain.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
What sort of "critical commentary" would make an assertion like that taking a verse out of context to develop an opinion based on what was not said in that reference?
This wasn't a critical commentary. I was clear that I haven't seen serious critical exegesis make that claim. I have, however, seen it made by someone with at least decent scholarly credentials. I think it was in Biblical Archaeology Review, though I could be wrong. The same or a related article made the claim about 1 Tim 1:4. Again, it's not in any critical commentary I've seen.

I'm not going to explain why I think it's a reasonable reading, because of CF rules. (Note that something can be reasonable but on balance still be wrong.)

The argument is kind of an argument by silence. But it goes slightly beyond that. It's more "this isn't the way he would have said that if he had believed ..." This is obviously somewhat subjective, but no more subjective than some of what I'm seeing here in favor of Paul referring to the Virgin Birth.

My intent isn't to dispute the Virgin Birth, but to support the original observation that Paul doesn't show evidence of it. The moment we go beyond that we get into kinds of speculation that can go in either direction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟154,410.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your premise is an argument from silence?

Most skeptics actually argue the apostle Paul invented the Virgin birth as the Gospel of Luke was written by a companion of Paul (Luke).

More than Luke, it has been recorded by Matthew.

The apostle Paul does not give the accounts of the Miracles Jesus performed. Does that in itself show some sort of disrespect of our Lord's Work during His ministry?

Let us confine to only virgin birth

Can you show me where John, Peter, and James mention the Virgin birth?

Are we to assume their silence means something? If so what exactly?

The thrust in the OP is about mentioning, not silence.

Not true:

Ignatius a.d. 30–107
And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter X.—The reality of Christ’s passion.

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter VI.—Do not accept Judaism.


More:

Virgin birth of Jesus | Theopedia

Bible please.
 
Upvote 0

Righttruth

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2015
4,484
341
✟154,410.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If anyone exhibited hate here towards a religious figure you respect, you can take up matters with the staff.

Is the Qur'an part of your canon or sacred to you? If so this may not be the forum to discuss the views of Muhammad.

Thanks for the suggestions
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This wasn't a critical commentary. I was clear that I haven't seen serious critical exegesis make that claim. I have, however, seen it made by someone with at least decent scholarly credentials. I think it was in Biblical Archaeology Review, though I could be wrong. The same or a related article made the claim about 1 Tim 1:4. Again, it's not in any critical commentary I've seen.

I'm not going to explain why I think it's a reasonable reading, because of CF rules. (Note that something can be reasonable but on balance still be wrong.)

The argument is kind of an argument by silence. But it goes slightly beyond that. It's more "this isn't the way he would have said that if he had believed ..." This is obviously somewhat subjective, but no more subjective than some of what I'm seeing here in favor of Paul referring to the Virgin Birth.

My intent isn't to dispute the Virgin Birth, but to support the original observation that Paul doesn't show evidence of it. The moment we go beyond that we get into kinds of speculation that can go in either direction.
Who says the "original observation" is that Saint Paul shows no evidence of supporting a Virgin Birth? You mean your "observation" in this thread?

An educated Jewish scholar describing His nature (human) to his reader does so in a manner obviously referring to a prophecy about His Mother and makes zero comments what so ever against that aspect prophecy. We know without doubt some of his traveling buddies, his hood and his fans believe in a Virgin Birth. One of those wrote of that aspect of His Birth. Saint Paul writes most of the NT himself and does so in an era when belief in a Virgin Birth is obviously so infused as a basic belief among Christians that the Gospel writer hearing the story the most does not even mention it. Such a common shared belief would not have to mentioned in every single writing. And it is a belief Saint Paul never once spoke against.

The argument from language is precisely that Saint Paul would not have said it that way if he did not believe it. That some modern translations have obscured that distinction by simply making the English less awkward is hardly a sound basis for proposing his stance is the opposite.

Does this "observation" about Saint Paul also include seeing him as a rather humble quiet man, hesitant to give voice to opinion, or that does not speak out against error?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.