Post Reply
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jesus, the virgin birth, and his genealogy
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 3:19AM #31
Namchuck
Posts: 11,554

The 'virgin birth' is essentially the stuff of myth, as is likely the whole story of the Jesus of faith.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 8:02AM #32
JRT
Posts: 340

Mar 29, 2012 -- 3:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


The 'virgin birth' is essentially the stuff of myth, as is likely the whole story of the Jesus of faith.




Even Saul/Paul in an epistle notes that Jesus was born "according to the flesh". I would interpret these words as saying that "the birth of Jesus was a perfectly normal human birth." Virgin birth stories do not enter Christian scripture till Matthew who wrote some 20 years after Paul's death.

the floggings will continue until morale improves
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 10:53AM #33
Joe68
Posts: 289

You say "in an epistle [Paul] notes that Jesus was born 'according to the flesh" but you don't cite the specific reference so we don't know the context. And context is king when interpreting another's words.


From post #30:


Paul wrote: But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Galatians 4:4


The expression "made of a woman" is peculiar. The meaning of "made" is not "born," but "cause to be" or "begotten." If Paul were speaking of any ordinary man, one would expect him to say, "born of a woman," the expression that Jesus used with reference to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). Yet Paul is speaking not of Jesus' birth, but of His biological conception.


This is evident when we further examine his use of "made." In the same text, he says also that Jesus was "made under the law." He is affirming that Jesus was by parentage a member of the nation of Israel. Elsewhere, he says, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:3


Paul is affirming here that Jesus was by parentage a physical descendant of David. Yet, Jesus' sonship to Israel and David began not when He was born, but when He was conceived. Thus, in Paul's lexicon, a person is "made" when he is formed in the womb. But why does he say that Jesus was "made of a woman"? For two reasons, we can be confident that these words imply the Virgin Birth.


If, as the critics allege, Paul never heard of the Virgin Birth, we would expect different language in Galatians 4:4. Paul would identify Jesus as the seed of David, as in Romans 1:3, or the seed of Abraham, as in Galatians 3:16. To stress Jesus' humanity, he might refer to His human parents. But although he might mention both of His parents or only His father, he would scarcely mention only His mother - due to the ANE culture thing. Thus by omitting Joseph in reference to His humanity Paul implies that it through His mother alone that Jesus "gets" His humanity. And that strongly implies a virgin birth.


Unless "made of a woman" presumes the Virgin Birth, the phrase is inessential to the argument. Paul could affirm the Incarnation by simply saying, "God sent forth His Son as a man made under the law." But he says specifically "made of a woman" because he is thinking of the purpose in Christ's coming. That purpose was "to redeem them that were under the law" (v. 5). He could be the redeemer of others only if He was sinless Himself, and He could be sinless Himself only if He was conceived without the aid of a human father; that is, only if He was made of a woman.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 3:23PM #34
Namchuck
Posts: 11,554

Mar 31, 2012 -- 8:02AM, JRT wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 3:19AM, Namchuck wrote:


The 'virgin birth' is essentially the stuff of myth, as is likely the whole story of the Jesus of faith.




Even Saul/Paul in an epistle notes that Jesus was born "according to the flesh". I would interpret these words as saying that "the birth of Jesus was a perfectly normal human birth." Virgin birth stories do not enter Christian scripture till Matthew who wrote some 20 years after Paul's death.




I believe you are spot on in your observations that the Virgin birth, JRT, which, like the resurrection, was simply another version of a common Middle Eastern theme incorporated into the Jesus myth by later writers.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 12:28PM #35
JRT
Posts: 340

Romans 1:


Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.


The highlighted portion above indicates that he was a direct descendant of David by normal human generation. No virgin birth is suggested here. What is suggested is that Jesus was not Son of God at birth but was made so by declaration at the resurrection.

the floggings will continue until morale improves
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 8:50PM #36
Joe68
Posts: 289

First, in order to determine what Paul thinks about the virgin birth one must look at everything he teaches on the subject. Since you haven’t addressed what I posted above concerning Paul and Christ’s birth above your use of Romans 1:1-4 is merely an instance of the fallacy of cherry picking quotes.  


Secondly, Paul teaches that Jesus was both God and man. Verse 3 declares his humanity; v. 4 proclaims his deity. “Flesh” in Romans 1:3 refers to the corporeal part of man, his physical body. “Seed” is the seed from which anything germinates. It is used in this context of the ancestry of David. That is, the Son of God, so far as His human ancestry is concerned, comes from the line of David.


So as a man Jesus was born (literally “became”; Galatians 4:4 uses this verb in the same way, literally “he became of a woman”) of the seed of David according to the flesh and not deny the virgin birth. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 12:33AM #37
Namchuck
Posts: 11,554

Apr 2, 2012 -- 8:50PM, Joe68 wrote:


First, in order to determine what Paul thinks about the virgin birth one must look at everything he teaches on the subject. Since you haven’t addressed what I posted above concerning Paul and Christ’s birth above your use of Romans 1:1-4 is merely an instance of the fallacy of cherry picking quotes.  


Secondly, Paul teaches that Jesus was both God and man. Verse 3 declares his humanity; v. 4 proclaims his deity. “Flesh” in Romans 1:3 refers to the corporeal part of man, his physical body. “Seed” is the seed from which anything germinates. It is used in this context of the ancestry of David. That is, the Son of God, so far as His human ancestry is concerned, comes from the line of David.


So as a man Jesus was born (literally “became”; Galatians 4:4 uses this verb in the same way, literally “he became of a woman”) of the seed of David according to the flesh and not deny the virgin birth. 




And Joe knows all about cherry-picking scripture.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 1:11AM #38
Joe68
Posts: 289

You have no idea if I’ve cherry-picked these verses. You simply don’t know the scriptures well enough to determine that. You are just making a blind assertion. So I’ll call your bluff.  


Please cite the relevant and significant verses that you think I am failing to use and how they impact Paul’s view.


  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:30AM #39
Namchuck
Posts: 11,554

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:11AM, Joe68 wrote:


You have no idea if I’ve cherry-picked these verses. You simply don’t know the scriptures well enough to determine that. You are just making a blind assertion. So I’ll call your bluff.  


Please cite the relevant and significant verses that you think I am failing to use and how they impact Paul’s view.


  




I'm very familiar with the scriptures, and certainly well enough versed in them to have noticed how you, like most believers, cherry-pick them at will in an attempt to substantiate apriori beliefs.


And as you have failed to respond to me on a number of threads when I have called your bluff, I'm under no obligation to answer yours. 


The Virgin Birth, like most other magical claims made in the Bible, is no more than myth punctuated with substantial amounts of superstition. Whether Paul understood Jesus to be both man and god is as irrelevant as his misogynist view of women, the latter a recycling of the misogyny of Jewish monotheism, bequeathed to both Christianity and Islam. And I'd guess that you'd cherry-pick the scriptures in denial of this as well.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:43AM #40
Joe68
Posts: 289

Thanks for proving my point that your “Joe is cherry picking verses” is nothing more than an unprovable assertion on your part.


And now I’ll call your bluff again. Please cite the threads and posts where you have called my bluff and I failed to respond.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook