Examining the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Other Doctrines

[StTruth]

In other threads, I have mentioned the vexed question of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. I have mentioned also something which most of us know - that the Virgin Birth is one doctrine that cropped up only because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew Bible. All scholars from the most evangelical / conservative to the most liberal are aware of this. Even many archbishops in my church have ruled that a belief in the Virgin birth should not be a requirement in the faith. The former Archbishop of Canterbury certainly has made his views heard on this even though he did tone down to avoid dissension within the body of Christ. The archbishop of Sweden is more forthright about this. The former Archbishop of York was probably among the first and most vocal in his denial of the Virgin birth.

I first heard of this problem in about 2004 or 2005 when I didn't know what 'virgin' meant. I was in the York Minster for a very important Eucharist in which all the priests of the church gathered for some Synod. I was one of the altar boys. I was attending to the stole of a prominent Archbishop (a huge privilege) when another high-ranking church official (I think he was an important bishop) laughingly told the Archbishop, "None of your slur on the Virgin Birth, please. Not in front of these cherubs." The Archbishop laughed and then became serious because it was time to be robed. What they didn't realise was this cherub heard everything and I kept the words in my heart. It was an important occasion for the church and the importance and the pomp were not lost on children. We all knew this was a special occasion and of course we listened to every word.

I knew the Virgin Mary because she's mentioned in the Creed. But I didn't at that early age connect the "Virgin" part with the birth. I asked my parents that day what the priests were talking about but they told me to forget everything.

It was much later when I started looking up the subject of the Virgin birth. I believe what I will say here is what everyone already knows. Basically, the St Matthew evangelist who I'll just call St Matthew used the Septuagint throughout. That's the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek. WHy he doesn't use the Hebrew Bible has led to speculation that St Matthew was not Matthew the disciple but a Hellenistic Christian who didn't know Hebrew and had to be content with the Septuagint which everyone knows is a badly translated Bible.

The Isaiah prophecy mentions that an "almah" (young maiden) will be with child and the Septuagint translates that as "parthenos" (virgin). Some scholars say that this has prompted St Matthew to spin a story about Mary's conversation with the angel in order to stress the virginity of the birth because St Matthew, by relying on the Septuagint, had wrongly thought that Mary's virginity was an essential ingredient in the prophecy. Many scholars have also showed (and a previous Archbishop agrees with this) why the early part of St Matthew was probably added on to the Gospel.

When Bruce Metzger translated the RSV Bible, he decidedly to be honest and he translated "almah" in Isaiah as "young woman". However this caused an uproar, principally among fundamentalists in the US who burnt the RSV on the lawns of their fundamentalist churches. I read about this in a tribute to Bruce Metzger in Christianity Today on the death of Metzger. Apparently, Metzger simply said that we had come a long way since Tyndale. We now burn the translation and not the translator. What a great man and what a great sense of humour.

I'm glad my church is rational enough to see the Virgin birth in the context of history. But Holy Tradition is important to the church and it should be important to all of us Christians. Even though we know that the Virgin birth came about because of a mistranslation, I believe we should treat it with a great deal of reverence. After all, we are talking about the mother of our Lord and even if we decide that our Lord's birth wasn't a virgin birth, that should not detract from the supreme holiness of the birth of the King of kings and Lord of Lords.

The non-virginity also does not affect any of our rituals. The Blessing of the Crib makes no implication on the virginity. In fact, nothing requires virginity in our Lord's birth. It doesn't make very God any less very God. The only thing that makes me reluctant to believe wholeheartedly that it wasn't a Virgin birth is our Creed which specifically mentions that our Lord was born of the Virgin Mary. I've spoken to my Archdeacon on this and I've listened to the previous Bishop of Oxford who addressed this issue and basically, what I understand is we can submit to Church Tradition even if our heads tell us that the facts are different. As the Bishop of Oxford puts it so eloquently, we can accept the Tradition of the church on the Virgin Birth and we can appropriate its significance (which is basically the pureness and sacredness of that momentous event when God Himself was born) and we give full assent to the majesty and splendour of God the Son. We should not be proud and arrogant and it would be dreadfully wrong if just because there is a translational error, we now insist that we change the words of the Creed or any other such violent reactions that can only cause division and schism in the body of Christ's holy church.

I entirely agree with the learned bishops on this. What do you think?


NOTE: I have edited this to remove direct identification of particular persons in church.

 

[StTruth]

THE DOCTRINE OF BEING BORN AGAIN

The other doctrine that is always mentioned here on CF is one which has never once been used in my church. I've been an altar boy for the greater part of my life and I have not once heard of this doctrine. It's the doctrine of being born again. My friend and I once met a street preacher in Leicester Square and he just zoomed in on us and asked us if we were born again. My friend and I just ran away as fast as we could. It was very unnerving when a loud street preacher stops his yakking and addressed us. At that time, my friend (who was also an altar boy) and I just thought he was mad.

It was much later that I discovered that 'born again' is a term that's plucked from the Gospel of St John, chapter 3, beginning from verse 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Why on earth does our Lord use the term 'born again' when he obviously means 'being born of the Spirit'? It didn't make any sense at all to me until after I had read the work of a scholar who is perfectly knowledgeable in the ancient tongues at the dawn of the birth of Christianity.

You see, Jesus was playing with words but it was a word play that is only possible if you are speaking in Koine Greek. The word that Jesus used which we translate as 'again' is "ανωθεν" which has two meanings. The first is 'again' which is what Nicodemus understood it to mean which is why he asked whether he could enter into his mother's womb again. The second meaning is 'from above' which is the meaning our Lord intended. This is what our Lord did when he saw Nicodemus' confusion. He explained that he meant 'born of the spirit' or literally, 'born from above'.

But historians tell us that our Lord spoke Aramaic and certainly to Nicodemus, he would be speaking Aramaic. Unlike Koine Greek, Aramaic has no such double meaning and so, one of the arguments some scholar propose is that this conversation didn't really take place. It is something, possibly a Hellenistic Christian who wrote St John put into the Gospel to emphasise the importance of being 'born of the Spirit' or to have one's entire being focused on God.

A Bible translator confronted with such a word would most probably translate it as 'again' which is what we find in all our Bibles. That's because if we use the other meaning and translate it as 'born from above', it would make Nicodemus' answer rather puzzling. It makes more sense to let Jesus say something that sounds cryptic and give a whole new meaning to our English word 'again' than to make us all wonder what on earth is wrong with Nicodemus. That is why today, whether you're using English or any other languages in the world, 'born again' has acquired a whole new meaning.

Next time, if a street preacher shouts from his box at me, 'Are you born again?' I'm not going to run away but I'll stand my ground and tell him our Lord didn't say those words recorded in John 3:3. That is if I dare. LOL

 

[Radrook]

Some scholars say many things and some scholars which say many things hold lofty titles like Archbishop. I once viewed the film Jesus of Nazareth and the channel which provided the film had invited a Catholic priest to be present and to comment during the frequent intermissions.

Well, I expected a complementary addition to the enjoyment and appreciation from such an expert until: Lo and Behold! he started casting doubt on the historicity of every scene as well as the scriptures which supported them. In short, he took that opportunity to subtly denigrate the Gospel accounts upon which the film was based and even cast doubt on the verifiability of the existence of Jesus himself via cunningly-contrived innuendos which he calmly and matter-of-factly enunciated with an arrogantly, smug expression on his face.

I have often wondered why someone would study for the priesthood and then use it to do the opposite of what such a position requires. Then I remembered the verse about the ministers of Satan masquerading as ministers of light and understood perfectly exactly what was going on.

2 Cor 11: 14
13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their actions.…

 

[StTruth]

Some scholars say many things and some scholars which say many things hold lofty titles like Archbishop. I once viewed her film Jesus of Nazareth and the channel which provided the film had invited a Catholic priest to be present and to comment during the frequent intermissions.

Well, I expected a complementary addition to the enjoyment and appreciation from such an expert until: Lo and Behold! he started casting doubt on the historicity of every scene as well as the scriptures which supported them. In short, he took that opportunity to subtly denigrate the Gospel accounts upon which the film was based and even cast doubt on the verifiability of the existence of Jesus himself via cunningly-contrived innuendos which he calmly and matter-of-factly enunciated with an arrogantly, smug expression on his face.

I have often wondered why someone would study for the priesthood and then use it to do the opposite of what such a position requires. Then I remembered the verse about the ministers of Satan masquerading as ministers of light and understood perfectly exactly what was going on.

2 Cor 11: 14
13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their actions.…

Hi Radrook,

Thanks for sharing that experience. I know what you mean. For most of my life until very recently, I've been an altar boy and my family is extremely religious so I'm always in the company of the clergy. I only stopped my acolyte duties because I've grown taller and the other taller boys have left the church; it's important for me to stress that I didn't stop my work out of rebellion or anything of the sort. I'm still in close contact with my vicar and the archdeacon who is currently my mentor on all things religious.

Not very long ago, I actually believed everything in the Bible. I even thought the story of Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, the Flood and everything else was true and historical. 4 years ago, I believed in Santa Claus. I already had my doubts then but I must have still believed because when my dad finally told me it was all false, I felt quite sad and I wished it were true.

When my archdeacon got me interested in the books of scholars, I discovered a whole new world that was never revealed to me before. Some of the things I discovered didn't make me very happy. Rather, I wished they were true and the scholars were wrong.

What is important, I soon realised is not that the scholars cast doubt on my cherished beliefs and I'm so sad certain things aren't true. The point is if the scholars are right, these things have all along been not true. My discovery that they are not true does not change anything. It only changes my knowledge. It tells me that what I used to believe is actually not true. So, I asked myself. Do I want to know the truth or would the truth be so destructive to my happiness that I would rather not know it and continue to believe an untruth. I thought a great deal about it and I decided that I must know the truth. That surely must be far more important to me than my cherished beliefs.

Rather than be upset with the RC priest for casting doubt on the existence of Jesus or the accuracy of the Bible, I would be more interested to know what he has to say and, if possible, rebut his arguments. If a belief is true, no amount casting doubts can make a dent on truth. I would rather examine the arguments of all sides and look at the evidence and see who is right.

The two doctrines I mentioned above and why they may very well be mistaken are known to all Bible scholars, even evangelical and conservative ones like the great FF Bruce. I'm surprised they didn't tell all of us lay people. For some reason, they seem to prefer to hide such things in their scholarly journals and books.

I've stated briefly from my reading of the books of scholars why those two doctrines may be a mistake. If I'm mistaken, a competent Christian can easily tear down what I have said in a rebuttal. I am still young and I haven't made up my mind on any of these things and I'm prepared to be swayed by truth which will always prevail when scrutinised in the open.

If you think what I've posted above are wrong, perhaps you have a strong rebuttal that you can post?

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[Greg J.]

... that the Virgin Birth is one doctrine that cropped up only because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew Bible. All scholars from the most evangelical / conservative to the most liberal are aware of this. ...

StTruth, I'm not sure where you got this idea. I am aware of no mainstream Christian scholars who firmly believe a human male was the father of Jesus in regard to his physical body. Obviously our experiences differ drastically.

You seem to be heavily swayed by what the people in your subculture believe. Let me suggest that you (and all the rest of us) always keep these things in mind:
1. Our foremost goal is to know, love, yield to, and be more connected with the living person Jesus Christ/God, not to know a lot about him. Knowing about him is priceless because it is a part of knowing him. Knowing him is fundamental to genuinely "believing in Jesus," by which we are saved.
2. This is the purpose of Scripture for us. Knowing the real God will always be obstructed without first accepting Scripture is all true and without error in its original form (of which today's form is 99%+ the same).
3. We need to read Scripture with an attitude of believing everything, otherwise we are relying on men's wisdom to know God (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, 1 Corinthians 1:25, 1 Corinthians 3:19).
We must rely on the Holy Spirit (who will be faithful if you believe) to be our Teacher (Matthew 23:10, John 16:13).

Still struggling to believe in God (such as that he did and does miracles) will interfere with clear reasoning of matters involving the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If we have trouble believing in the supernatural, then we can't genuinely believe in the God of the Bible. If we do not believe Scripture, our faith is founded upon, well, nothing. The writers of Scripture confirm each other writings are from God. All of Scripture is consistent with itself. There are no contradictions, in spite of the number of writers and huge time span in which they wrote. Where there appear to be contradictions, there is actually only lack of human understanding or belief.

As you suggest, the virgin birth is not a subject to take lightly. In fact, if Jesus was born by a human father, then we are not saved, and are on our way to eternal punishment. See this short post I wrote, particularly point 3.

Regarding being "born again," it is good to see you interested enough in understanding Scripture to dig into something like that.

However, there's nothing wrong with using the phrase "born again." We are first born to our mother and fathers, but we are born spiritually disconnected from God. Because sin is the cause, we can't reconnect with God in any way. Nowhere in Scripture will you find sin being "undone," it can only be destroyed (or "die"). So salvation ("reconnecting" with God) can only be done by faith. By faith we actually participate in Jesus' death on the cross, and die with him, and by faith we are raised with him into a new life that is in unity with Jesus. We are no longer two separate beings, but one being (often the phrase in Christ is used in Scripture for this). This resurrection is our second birth, this time into Life (that is in Jesus) rather than death. Hence, we are "born again."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why on earth does our Lord use the term 'born again' when he obviously means 'being born of the Spirit'?

Jesus spoke as the Father told Him to, not on His own like most people.
His Word is simple in english, and easy to understand when the Father grants it.
In any language, the truth is unknown to a person, if the Father doesn't grant it.

 

[StTruth]

StTruth, I'm not sure where you got this idea. I am aware of no mainstream Christian scholars who firmly believe a human male was the father of Jesus in regard to his physical body. Obviously our experiences differ drastically.

You seem to be heavily swayed by what the people in your subculture believe. Let me suggest that you (and all the rest of us) always keep these things in mind:
1. Our foremost goal is to know, love, yield to, and be more connected with the living person Jesus Christ/God, not to know a lot about him. Knowing about him is priceless because it is a part of knowing him. Knowing him is fundamental to genuinely "believing in Jesus," by which we are saved.
2. This is the purpose of Scripture for us. Knowing the real God will always be obstructed without first accepting Scripture is all true and without error in its original form (of which today's form is 99%+ the same).
3. We need to read Scripture with an attitude of believing everything, otherwise we are relying on men's wisdom to know God (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, 1 Corinthians 1:25, 1 Corinthians 3:19).
We must rely on the Holy Spirit (who will be faithful if you believe) to be our Teacher (Matthew 23:10, John 16:13).

Still struggling to believe in God (such as that he did and does miracles) will interfere with clear reasoning of matters involving the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If we have trouble believing in the supernatural, then we can't genuinely believe in the God of the Bible. If we do not believe Scripture, our faith is founded upon, well, nothing. The writers of Scripture confirm each other writings are from God. All of Scripture is consistent with itself. There are no contradictions, in spite of the number of writers and huge time span in which they wrote. Where there appear to be contradictions, there is actually only lack of human understanding or belief.

As you suggest, the virgin birth is not a subject to take lightly. In fact, if Jesus was born by a human father, then we are not saved, and are on our way to eternal punishment. See this short post I wrote, particularly point 3.

Regarding being "born again," it is good to see you interested enough in understanding Scripture to dig into something like that.

However, there's nothing wrong with using the phrase "born again." We are first born to our mother and fathers, but we are born spiritually disconnected from God. Because sin is the cause, we can't reconnect with God in any way. Nowhere in Scripture will you find sin being "undone," it can only be destroyed (or "die"). So salvation ("reconnecting" with God) can only be done by faith. By faith we actually participate in Jesus' death on the cross, and die with him, and by faith we are raised with him into a new life that is in unity with Jesus. We are no longer two separate beings, but one being (often the phrase in Christ is used in Scripture for this). This resurrection is our second birth, this time into Life (that is in Jesus) rather than death. Hence, we are "born again."

Hi Greg J,

Thanks for your post. Although my friends warned me about joining CF because 3 of my classmates lost their faith after meeting with strong hostility from the Christians in CF (strangely, the non-Christians weren't "nasty" at all), I find the controversial theology forum quite useful for my purpose. You see, I'm actually much younger than I appear in forums and I tend to react very strongly to books I've just read especially when they are written by brilliant scholars who present the facts and their arguments coherently. Lately, I've been reading a long list of scholars recommended by a high-ranking priest in my church but a lot of what they say seem highly controversial. I can't discuss these things with my parents who are devout believers but they are not the sort who bother about theology. My archdeacon seems to be all on the side of these scholars and he has no problem with the extremely revolutionary ideas. Airing my thoughts in CF especially on this forum on controversial theology is an excellent way to see a wide range of different viewpoints.

You wrote this: "I am aware of no mainstream Christian scholars who firmly believe a human male was the father of Jesus in regard to his physical body."

But I have not at all talked about a male father. I haven't got that far yet. All I'm saying is virginity was never a part of the Hebrew prophecy. But the poor Septuagint translation has made it necessary for the writer of St Matthew to concoct the story of Mary's conversation with the angel in which she declared her virginity. I'm not sure how much mainstream Christian scholars would agree with this but I daresay most of them would agree with it even if they probably won't say that St Matthew concocted the story. You may dismiss that as my imprecise schoolboy's language.

What scholars are you referring to? Would the scholar FF Bruce who is extremely well known in evangelical and conservative circles be the sort you approve of?

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[Greg J.]

doctrine of the Virgin Birth

But I have not at all talked about a male father.

Ah, I am not familiar with what this doctrine is. My presumption was that there isn't much to wonder about the virgin birth unless one questions whether the Holy Spirit was the father in regard to Jesus' body.

I no longer have the attention span to read whole books, and my contact with scholars was a long time ago. It is safe to say that (although not useful to anyone, John 5:31) I've gotten all my theology by the Holy Spirit showing me things through Scripture.

Which is sort of the biggest point I want to make: if you limit yourself to sifting through the opinions of men, you aren't going to find answers, you will only formulate an opinion yourself, with those that disagree with your position detracting from your faith. God will give you understanding if you rely on him. If you rely on the understanding of other humans, I wouldn't expect much from God. You are forging yourself into a child of men. He works within the context we create for ourselves.

What God shows you himself would be radical enough to satisfy anyone with the need for cutting edge truth. Patience is needed, though, because we only deeply learn things slowly (it is dependent on our experiences), while knowledge and a kind of understanding can come quickly. If the living person Jesus Christ is the focus of your days, then you might not even need much patience, because God already has more he wants to give you than you can handle. The fast track to the truth is doing what God commanded in the Bible all the time (which you must try to understand and pray about yourself). Questioning the translators of the Bible is the last thing a young Christian should be doing. You are setting yourself up as equal to or greater than the expert translators (even if they disagree).

 

[StTruth]

Ah, I am not familiar with what this doctrine is. My presumption was that there isn't much to wonder about the virgin birth unless one questions whether the Holy Spirit was the father in regard to Jesus' body.

I no longer have the attention span to read whole books, and my contact with scholars was a long time ago. It is safe to say that (although not useful to anyone, John 5:31) I've gotten all my theology by the Holy Spirit showing me things through Scripture.

Which is sort of the biggest point I want to make: if you limit yourself to sifting through the opinions of men, you aren't going to find answers, you will only formulate an opinion yourself, with those that disagree with your position detracting from your faith. God will give you understanding if you rely on him. If you rely on the understanding of other humans, I wouldn't expect much from God. You are forging yourself into a child of men. He works within the context we create for ourselves.

What God shows you himself would be radical enough to satisfy anyone with the need for cutting edge truth. Patience is needed, though, because we only deeply learn things slowly (it is dependent on our experiences), while knowledge and a kind of understanding can come quickly. If the living person Jesus Christ is the focus of your days, then you might not even need much patience, because God already has more he wants to give you than you can handle. The fast track to the truth is doing what God commanded in the Bible all the time (which you must try to understand and pray about yourself). Questioning the translators of the Bible is the last thing a young Christian should be doing. You are setting yourself up as equal to or greater than the expert translators (even if they disagree).

Hi Greg J,

I'm just curious what your position is. Supposing I can show you that there is no prophecy of virginity in the Isaiah passage and St Matthew quoted something that really isn't from the correct reading of Isaiah, would you then accept that there is no prophecy of virginity in Jesus' birth? I have said nothing about whether there was a virgin birth. All I'm saying is there is no virginity in the prophecy. Surely that can be examined by looking at the verses? What is your position if I can show you that there is no prophecy of a virgin birth in Isaiah? Would you still reject it and insist the prophecy specified a virgin birth and if that is your position, what is your reason?

 

[Greg J.]

I don't care about the prophecy (at least online), because Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be able to save me. Thank you, Lord!

 

[StTruth]

I don't care about the prophecy (at least online), because Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be able to save me. Thank you, Lord!

So, even if I can show to you that the Isaiah prophecy makes absolutely no mention of the requirement for our Lord to be born of a virgin, you have still somehow decided that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to be able to save you? What caused you to decide that Jesus had to be born a virgin?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Thanks for your post. Although my friends warned me about joining CF because 3 of my classmates lost their faith after meeting with strong hostility from the Christians in C

..... faith in what ? Did your 'friends' oppose Jesus and the Scripture like you do ?

 

[Geralt]

wasted effort in your part. just read the gospels and the narrative of mary, Luke 1:34

obviously without the virgin birth, christ cannot be proven of divine origin, thus tainted with sinful nature.​

In other threads, I have mentioned the vexed question of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. I have mentioned also something which most of us know - that the Virgin Birth is one doctrine that cropped up only because of a mistranslation of the Hebrew Bible. All scholars from the most evangelical / conservative to the most liberal are aware of this. Even many archbishops in my church have ruled that a belief in the Virgin birth should not be a requirement in the faith. The former Archbishop of Canterbury certainly has made his views heard on this even though he did tone down to avoid dissension within the body of Christ. The archbishop of Sweden is more forthright about this. The former Archbishop of York was probably among the first and most vocal in his denial of the Virgin birth.

I first heard of this problem in about 2004 or 2005 when I didn't know what 'virgin' meant. I was in the York Minster for a very important Eucharist in which all the priests of the church gathered for some Synod. I was one of the altar boys. I was attending to the stole of a prominent Archbishop (a huge privilege) when another high-ranking church official (I think he was an important bishop) laughingly told the Archbishop, "None of your slur on the Virgin Birth, please. Not in front of these cherubs." The Archbishop laughed and then became serious because it was time to be robed. What they didn't realise was this cherub heard everything and I kept the words in my heart. It was an important occasion for the church and the importance and the pomp were not lost on children. We all knew this was a special occasion and of course we listened to every word.

I knew the Virgin Mary because she's mentioned in the Creed. But I didn't at that early age connect the "Virgin" part with the birth. I asked my parents that day what the priests were talking about but they told me to forget everything.

It was much later when I started looking up the subject of the Virgin birth. I believe what I will say here is what everyone already knows. Basically, the St Matthew evangelist who I'll just call St Matthew used the Septuagint throughout. That's the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek. WHy he doesn't use the Hebrew Bible has led to speculation that St Matthew was not Matthew the disciple but a Hellenistic Christian who didn't know Hebrew and had to be content with the Septuagint which everyone knows is a badly translated Bible.

The Isaiah prophecy mentions that an "almah" (young maiden) will be with child and the Septuagint translates that as "parthenos" (virgin). Some scholars say that this has prompted St Matthew to spin a story about Mary's conversation with the angel in order to stress the virginity of the birth because St Matthew, by relying on the Septuagint, had wrongly thought that Mary's virginity was an essential ingredient in the prophecy. Many scholars have also showed (and a previous Archbishop agrees with this) why the early part of St Matthew was probably added on to the Gospel.

When Bruce Metzger translated the RSV Bible, he decidedly to be honest and he translated "almah" in Isaiah as "young woman". However this caused an uproar, principally among fundamentalists in the US who burnt the RSV on the lawns of their fundamentalist churches. I read about this in a tribute to Bruce Metzger in Christianity Today on the death of Metzger. Apparently, Metzger simply said that we had come a long way since Tyndale. We now burn the translation and not the translator. What a great man and what a great sense of humour.

I'm glad my church is rational enough to see the Virgin birth in the context of history. But Holy Tradition is important to the church and it should be important to all of us Christians. Even though we know that the Virgin birth came about because of a mistranslation, I believe we should treat it with a great deal of reverence. After all, we are talking about the mother of our Lord and even if we decide that our Lord's birth wasn't a virgin birth, that should not detract from the supreme holiness of the birth of the King of kings and Lord of Lords.

The non-virginity also does not affect any of our rituals. The Blessing of the Crib makes no implication on the virginity. In fact, nothing requires virginity in our Lord's birth. It doesn't make very God any less very God. The only thing that makes me reluctant to believe wholeheartedly that it wasn't a Virgin birth is our Creed which specifically mentions that our Lord was born of the Virgin Mary. I've spoken to my Archdeacon on this and I've listened to the previous Bishop of Oxford who addressed this issue and basically, what I understand is we can submit to Church Tradition even if our heads tell us that the facts are different. As the Bishop of Oxford puts it so eloquently, we can accept the Tradition of the church on the Virgin Birth and we can appropriate its significance (which is basically the pureness and sacredness of that momentous event when God Himself was born) and we give full assent to the majesty and splendour of God the Son. We should not be proud and arrogant and it would be dreadfully wrong if just because there is a translational error, we now insist that we change the words of the Creed or any other such violent reactions that can only cause division and schism in the body of Christ's holy church.

I entirely agree with the learned bishops on this. What do you think?


NOTE: I have edited this to remove direct identification of particular persons in church.

 

[Geralt]

John 3 narrative is not really puzzling, it only puzzles those who have not experience it.
you are simply repeating and acting like Nicodemus yourself, puzzled. you need to be born again.
​

THE DOCTRINE OF BEING BORN AGAIN

The other doctrine that is always mentioned here on CF is one which has never once been used in my church. I've been an altar boy for the greater part of my life and I have not once heard of this doctrine. It's the doctrine of being born again. My friend and I once met a street preacher in Leicester Square and he just zoomed in on us and asked us if we were born again. My friend and I just ran away as fast as we could. It was very unnerving when a loud street preacher stops his yakking and addressed us. At that time, my friend (who was also an altar boy) and I just thought he was mad.

It was much later that I discovered that 'born again' is a term that's plucked from the Gospel of St John, chapter 3, beginning from verse 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.​

Why on earth does our Lord use the term 'born again' when he obviously means 'being born of the Spirit'? It didn't make any sense at all to me until after I had read the work of a scholar who is perfectly knowledgeable in the ancient tongues at the dawn of the birth of Christianity.

You see, Jesus was playing with words but it was a word play that is only possible if you are speaking in Koine Greek. The word that Jesus used which we translate as 'again' is "ανωθεν" which has two meanings. The first is 'again' which is what Nicodemus understood it to mean which is why he asked whether he could enter into his mother's womb again. The second meaning is 'from above' which is the meaning our Lord intended. This is what our Lord did when he saw Nicodemus' confusion. He explained that he meant 'born of the spirit' or literally, 'born from above'.

But historians tell us that our Lord spoke Aramaic and certainly to Nicodemus, he would be speaking Aramaic. Unlike Koine Greek, Aramaic has no such double meaning and so, one of the arguments some scholar propose is that this conversation didn't really take place. It is something, possibly a Hellenistic Christian who wrote St John put into the Gospel to emphasise the importance of being 'born of the Spirit' or to have one's entire being focused on God.

A Bible translator confronted with such a word would most probably translate it as 'again' which is what we find in all our Bibles. That's because if we use the other meaning and translate it as 'born from above', it would make Nicodemus' answer rather puzzling. It makes more sense to let Jesus say something that sounds cryptic and give a whole new meaning to our English word 'again' than to make us all wonder what on earth is wrong with Nicodemus. That is why today, whether you're using English or any other languages in the world, 'born again' has acquired a whole new meaning.

Next time, if a street preacher shouts from his box at me, 'Are you born again?' I'm not going to run away but I'll stand my ground and tell him our Lord didn't say those words recorded in John 3:3. That is if I dare. LOL

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

John 3 narrative is not really puzzling, it only puzzles those who have not experience it.
you are simply repeating and acting like Nicodemus yourself, puzzled. you need to be born again.

Perfect Insight !

 

[StTruth]

..... faith in what ? Did your 'friends' oppose Jesus and the Scripture like you do ?

It's a lie to say I oppose Jesus and the Scripture. Please learn to be honest. By the way, what do you mean by "Scripture"? You probably believe the 66 books make up Scripture. Who decided what gets into the canon of Scripture and when was this? Please show the evidence and not just speak from the top of your head.

 

[StTruth]

wasted effort in your part. just read the gospels and the narrative of mary, Luke 1:34

obviously without the virgin birth, christ cannot be proven of divine origin, thus tainted with sinful nature.​

Don't just say "obviously". You need authority for your proposition that "without the virgin birth, christ cannot be proven of divine origin, thus tainted with sinful nature." You can't just say something without showing the basis of why you are saying that. If your basis is Scriptural, please give me the chapter and verse.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You yourself posted your opposition to the Truth,
you posted against the virgin birth, on the basis of corrupt man's 'study' that you did ('flesh' as Yhwh calls it, which also HE curses)
and
you posted against Paul, an Apostle called and chosen by Yhwh , taught by Yeshua
which also Yeshua said if you are against/reject any who the Father sends, you are against/reject Yeshua first ....
more and more, the more you post, admitting this,
and "claiming" you like the arguments and opposition because you feel you become "stronger" ---- yes, stronger in your abomination and heresy...

 

[StTruth]

John 3 narrative is not really puzzling, it only puzzles those who have not experience it.
you are simply repeating and acting like Nicodemus yourself, puzzled. you need to be born again.
​

I did not say John 3 is puzzling. English may not be your native language and I apologise if my earlier post was not clear enough for you. I will try to say it again clearly. What I'm saying is that scholars have shown that Jesus could not have said those words in John 3:3 because there is no such double meaning in Aramaic where the word in Koine Greek "ανωθεν" can mean "again" which is what Nicodemus understood it to mean and "from above" which our Lord actually meant. As we know, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic and not Koine Greek and so, according to these scholars, that conversation could not have taken place. I hope this is now clear to you?

 

[StTruth]

You yourself posted your opposition to the Truth,
you posted against the virgin birth, on the basis of corrupt man's 'study' that you did ('flesh' as Yhwh calls it, which also HE curses)
and
you posted against Paul, an Apostle called and chosen by Yhwh , taught by Yeshua
which also Yeshua said if you are against/reject any who the Father sends, you are against/reject Yeshua first ....
more and more, the more you post, admitting this,
and "claiming" you like the arguments and opposition because you feel you become "stronger" ---- yes, stronger in your abomination and heresy...

It is not helpful to make wild allegations against anyone who posts something. If you think what I have stated is in error, please post your argument here. As I have stated, I am open to reason. If you think I have misunderstood scriptures, explain where I have gone wrong and show me what the correct position should be.