Christian arguments about the Virgin Birth

[Mr Spinkles]

In the Christians-only "Do you believe in the Virgin Birth" thread, the following arguments were advanced:

I'm saying that if His father had been a mortal man, he could not have been born of a virgin. He had to have been the Son of God to have been born of a virgin. The fact that a virgin conceived a child means that the Father of that child had to have had divine powers. Human men do not have divine powers.

This argument is composed of 4 separate claims:

(1) If Jesus' father was mortal, then Jesus could not have been born of a virgin.
(2) If Jesus was born of a virgin, he had to have been the Son of God.
(3) If a virgin conceived a child, the father must have had divine powers.
(4) Human men do not have divine powers.

Are these claims logically sound? Can anyone imagine possible scenarios, which are no less plausible on the face of it than impregnation by a deity, which explode these claims?

More generally: is this the kind of argumentation that inevitably surfaces in any theological, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of disagreement?

 

[Katzpur]

In the Christians-only "Do you believe in the Virgin Birth" thread, the following arguments were advanced:


This argument is composed of 4 separate claims:

(1) If Jesus' father was mortal, then he could not have been born of a virgin.
(2) If Jesus was born of a virgin, he had to have been the Son of God.
(3) If a virgin conceived a child, the father must have had divine powers.
(4) Human men do not have divine powers.

Are these claims logically sound? Can anyone imagine possible scenarios, which are no less plausible on the face of it than impregnation by a deity, which explode these claims?

More generally: is this the kind of argumentation that inevitably surfaces in any theological, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of disagreement?

Of course they are logically sound, Spinks! Are you suggesting that I would post something that was not?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course not!

 

[Katzpur]

Of course not!

So are you going to post your own personal arguments?

 

[Tonymai]

Why could not Jesus be a Son of God if both his father and mother were mortals? Why was virgin birth necessary for him to claim God is his Father. God is my Father and your Father as well. Jesus taught God is Father for all people. He only claimed that he had a pre-existence before his mortal life. He said he was sent from above. Such delivery does not seem to require virgin birth. Normal birth should be okay. And virgin birth was added to myth by later believers to match up with the saying in the old testament that "a virgin shall give birth".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sure. For starters, does a virgin conception (argument #3 in the OP) logically imply that the father has divine powers? Not the mother -- or the neighbor, for that matter? What prevents anyone with divine powers from implanting sperm into a virgin? This is a feat which could, in principle, be accomplished even by mortals who have no divine powers.

 

[Katzpur]

Why could not Jesus be a Son of God if both his father and mother were mortals?

For the same reason that any human being couldn't have been both the son of Bob and the son of Joe. People don't have two fathers.

Why was virgin birth necessary for him to claim God is his Father.

Do you know of any men who could have fathered a child back in Jesus' day without simultaneously taking away a woman's virginity at the same time?

God is my Father and your Father as well.

Yes, God is the Father of the spirits of each and every one of us, but we have human parents who are the mothers and fathers of our physical bodies. We have their genetics. The Bible says that Jesus is the "Only Begotten Son" of God. There is a difference in our parentage and Jesus' parentage.

Jesus taught God is Father for all people. He only claimed that he had a pre-existence before his mortal life. He said he was sent from above. Such delivery does not seem to require virgin birth. Normal birth should be okay.

Well, I believe all of us had a pre-mortal existance but I certainly don't believe I'm God's "Only Begotten Daughter." If He was sent from above, who fathered Him?

And virgin birth was added to myth by later believers to match up with the saying in the old testament that "a virgin shall give birth".

So Luke's account is just a myth? What other parts of the New Testament do you believe should be disgarded as mythical?

Ignorance is a bliss.

Huh?

 

[Tonymai]

Sure. For starters, does a virgin conception (argument #3 in the OP) logically imply that the father has divine powers? Not the mother -- or the neighbor, for that matter? What prevents anyone with divine powers from implanting sperm into a virgin? This is a feat which could, in principle, be accomplished even by mortals who have no divine powers.

The problem is that most people believe an intelligent life form is limited in the realm of material reality --the total intelligence of a man comes from an egg and a sperm. Such materialistic outlook is silly now as well as in the time of Jesus. God can endow power upon an individual when he is out of the womb.

 

[Katzpur]

Sure. For starters, does a virgin conception (argument #3 in the OP) logically imply that the father has divine powers? Not the mother -- or the neighbor, for that matter? What prevents anyone with divine powers from implanting sperm into a virgin? This is a feat which could, in principle, be accomplished even by mortals who have no divine powers.

Well, we know Mary was a mortal. I don't believe she even claimed to have any divine powers, so we can probably assume that she didn't. We also know that she was the mother of Jesus. We're trying to determine who fathered Him. It seems kind of weird to be bringing this up to an atheist, but if you don't believe in God, it seems kind of odd that you would suggest that maybe a human male could father a child (back before artificial insemination, I should add) without having had sexual relations with the child's mother. How would you explain that?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, we know Mary was a mortal. I don't believe she even claimed to have any divine powers, so we can probably assume that she didn't.

So, if I understand you correctly, really #3 in the OP should read: "If a virgin conceived a child, and the mother did not have divine powers, then the father must have had divine powers." Is that correct? This implies that if you are not the sperm donor, it is impossible to transfer sperm into a virgin, even if you have divine powers. It just does not logically follow.

It seems kind of weird to be bringing this up to an atheist, but if you don't believe in God, it seems kind of odd that you would suggest that maybe a human male could father a child (back before artificial insemination, I should add) without having had sexual relations with the child's mother. How would you explain that?

I couldn't. But if we are going to exclude from consideration any possible scenario which I cannot explain, then we must also exclude that God sent magic sperm which do everything mortal sperm do without rupturing the hymen. There's no logical reason to consider this inexplicable possibility, while excluding all other inexplicable possibilities from consideration.

 

[Katzpur]

So, if I understand you correctly, really #3 in the OP should read: "If a virgin conceived a child, and the mother did not have divine powers, then the father must have had divine powers." Is that correct?

I'd say so.

This implies that if you are not the sperm donor, it is impossible to transfer sperm into a virgin, even if you have divine powers. It just does not logically follow.

You kind of lost me here.

I couldn't. But if we are going to exclude from consideration any possible scenario which I cannot explain, then we must also exclude that God sent magic sperm which do everything mortal sperm do without rupturing the hymen. There's no logical reason to consider this inexplicable possibility, while excluding all other inexplicable possibilities from consideration.

But what other inexplicable possiblities are left if Jesus Christ is supposed to be God's Son and not Joseph's?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You kind of lost me here.

Okay, here is the claim in question:

"If a virgin conceived a child, and the mother did not have divine powers, then the father must have had divine powers."

And here is a counter-example: someone with divine powers transfers Joseph's sperm into the virgin Mary. A virgin conceived, yet the father did not have divine powers. One could imagine many many other possibilities, also, which show the claim in question (the one in italics above) is a non-sequitur. In fact, all of the claims in the OP are non-sequiturs.

But what other inexplicable possiblities are left if Jesus Christ is supposed to be God's Son and not Joseph's?

In your arguments (quoted in the OP) are you assuming Jesus is God's son and not Joseph's? In that case, claims #2 and #3 are tautologies, e.g. #2 becomes: "If the son of God was born of a virgin, then he had to have been the son of God." Is that all you are saying?

I thought the arguments in the OP were intended to prove that Jesus was God's son, given only the assumption that he was born of a virgin.

 

[crocusj]

God is my Father and your Father as well. Jesus taught God is Father for all people.

Speak for yourself Tonymai, do not presume to speak for me or my father.

 

[kepha31]

Okay, here is the claim in question:

"If a virgin conceived a child, and the mother did not have divine powers, then the father must have had divine powers."

Joseph wasn't the father.

And here is a counter-example: someone with divine powers transfers Joseph's sperm into the virgin Mary. A virgin conceived, yet the father did not have divine powers. One could imagine many many other possibilities, also, which show the claim in question (the one in italics above) is a non-sequitur. In fact, all of the claims in the OP are non-sequiturs.

God the Father has divine powers.

In your arguments (quoted in the OP) are you assuming Jesus is God's son and not Joseph's? In that case, claims #2 and #3 are tautologies, e.g. #2 becomes: "If the son of God was born of a virgin, then he had to have been the son of God." Is that all you are saying?

Yes, that is why we call it the virgin birth.

I thought the arguments in the OP were intended to prove that Jesus was God's son, given only the assumption that he was born of a virgin.

The Protoevangelium of James is a document written some 60 years after Mary's death (around 120). Memories of Mary was still fresh in the minds of Christians.According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

Mary's birth was prohecied, according to the Protoevangelium. St. Anne, Mary's mother, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

sources: Protoevangelium of James: full text
Mary: Ever Virgin

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, here is the claim in question:

"If a virgin conceived a child, and the mother did not have divine powers, then the father must have had divine powers."

And here is a counter-example: someone with divine powers transfers Joseph's sperm into the virgin Mary. A virgin conceived, yet the father did not have divine powers.

God could conceivably have transferred Joseph's sperm into Mary and she could, in that way, have conceived a child while remaining a virgin. In such a case, though, Jesus would still have been the son of Joseph and not the Son of God. Given the fact that He is referred to dozens and dozens of times in the scriptures, as the Son of God, I believe that's what He was.

(Just as an aside... It absolutely blows my mind that people are always saying that Mormons don't trust the Bible, that we claim to use it, but that we really don't. Here I am, a Mormon, being one of the few Christians on the forum to be absolutely committed to the belief that Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God and that He was born to a Virgin. Go figure. )

 

[kepha31]

God didn't use sperm. He is spirit. Spirit fused with human flesh. If God used sperm, then that would not be an Incarnation, but a creation. Is that the Mormon position?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

God could conceivably have transferred Joseph's sperm into Mary and she could, in that way, have conceived a child while remaining a virgin. In such a case, though, Jesus would still have been the son of Joseph and not the Son of God.

Right. But I am only pointing out that your arguments (quoted in the OP) are non-sequiturs. Do you concede this or do you still think they are logically sound?

Again I'm not arguing that Jesus was not the Son of God or that the Virgin Birth did not occur, I am only saying that the arguments you used are non-sequiturs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

God didn't use sperm.

Of course, God used an egg from a woman with an intact hymen, and supernaturally inserted the Y chromosome necessary to fertilize this egg. The addition of a single sperm to this scheme is enough to bring the whole thing crashing down under the weight of its own implausibility.

 

[Katzpur]

God didn't use sperm. He is spirit. Spirit fused with human flesh. If God used sperm, then that would not be an Incarnation, but a creation. Is that the Mormon position?

To tell you the truth, I've never in 62 years heard any mention in an LDS worship service or seen any reference in any LDS writings to the issues of sperm. I will say, though, (and this is me; this is not some high-ranking LDS Church official) that if Jesus really was human, (while also being divine), then He had forty-six chromosomes, two strands of twenty-three each. He would have gotten one strand from His mother. Where would He have gotten the other strand from, if not from His Father? Since we're told, though, that Mary was a virgin, there had to be a miracle involved in His conception.

 

[Katzpur]

Right. But I am only pointing out that your arguments (quoted in the OP) are non-sequiturs. Do you concede this or do you still think they are logically sound?

Well, they are logically sound in my mind. That doesn't necessarily imply that I expressed them in a logically sound manner.