Christian arguments about the Virgin Birth

[Alceste]

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.[/quote]

Or a turkey baster. :flirt:

 

[ἀλήθεια]

How would it be logical that God the Father who is Spirit and doesn't have a created body, needed to put his own chromosomes (which he doesn't need or have) into God the Son?

It makes no sense. Did Adam have chromosomes? Who were his parents? Where did his chromosomes originate?

 

[Renji]

Who were his parents?

Uhm, he was "created" by God???

 

[NeilPye]

Don't care enough to read through every post, I'm just going to post my thoughts on the Virgin Birth:

The Virgin Birth story was an attempt to cover up Jesus' inception, which was unacceptable to Jewish Law. Jesus' real father and mother had more than likely conceived out of wedlock, maybe Mary was even a prostitute.

Mark 6:1-3 below:

1 Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.

In the traditions of that day, who would refer to a man as the "Son of [mother's name here]"? It was tradition to use the father's name, especially in Judaism. The only reason they would refer to Jesus as the "Son of Mary" is that if they didn't know who his father was. That statement in Mark 6:3 was a reference to Jesus' embarrassing conception, and was used as an insult against Him and His word.

The Virgin Birth cannot make any biological sense, unless semen was artificially implanted onto Mary's eggs, a technique that did not exist in first century Nazareth, or Bethelem, or wherever you believe Jesus was conceived. Even if Mary magically received the semen, Jesus would still break her hymen during the birth!

The complete illogicality of the Virgin Birth has not gone unnoticed through the centuries, so people looked for other explanations. In the Middle Ages, rumor spread that Jesus was born out of Mary's ear, and was regarded as a perfectly acceptable theory!

The fact is, as a Christian living in the 21th century, I cannot believe the Virgin Birth. Biology wins over liturgy.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

This.

That said, he may have been born of a virgin, I wouldn´t seem it as imposible.

I believe in miracles after all

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the traditions of that day, who would refer to a man as the "Son of [mother's name here]"? It was tradition to use the father's name, especially in Judaism.

You should read Samuel and Kings. See, for example, references to the very curious Zeruiah.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

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.

1) God did not require sperm "To create life". nor would he have done so in this "Particular" case.

2) The Hymen does not need to be ruptured for a pregnancy to occur, as many girls have found to their cost. the Hymen is not a total barrier.

3) A female who gives birth by Parthenogenesis can only have a female offspring, as ther are no Y chromosomes available. (Though this takes no account of God's power.)

4) I do not have any way to account for Jesus to be the Son of God, that does not apply to us all.

5) Perhaps this is what Jesus was telling us.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

And yet Wiki suggests that it is pseudepigraphical "written about 145 AD" by an author "not aware of contemporary Jewish Customs". See, also, Kirby. It provides evidence of, not memories of Mary, but the mid-2nd century CE existence and perhaps development of traditions about Mary. The Protoevangelium of James could very easily have been embellishment upon evolving gospel lore.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1) God did not require sperm "To create life". nor would he have done so in this "Particular" case.

Union rules?

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

(2) If Jesus was born of a virgin, he had to have been the Son of God.

definitely not, considering the creation of Adam, creating Jesus is not that difficult.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Union rules?

However life was created ... Sperm is very much the late comer to the party.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1) God did not require sperm "To create life". nor would he have done so in this "Particular" case.

Union rules?

However life was created ... Sperm is very much the late comer to the party.

Which, of course, is irrelevant. Once you posit an all powerful supernatural Avency, nothing is required in any case.

 

[no-body]

I love it when Christian theology looks like a bunch of guys discussing comic book cannon (dark night batman could so kick Adam West batmans ***)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Which, of course, is irrelevant. Once you posit an all powerful supernatural Avency, nothing is required in any case.

For God to be God he is by nature supernatural.
But I suspect it is "rare indeed" for him to work outside the laws of the universe.

 

[crystalonyx]

Unless they had DNA test equipment back in that day, proving a virgin birth is impossible.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Which, of course, is irrelevant. Once you posit an all powerful supernatural Avency, nothing is required in any case.

Including a Virgin Birth of any shape or form. Or a crucifixion, for that matter.

 

[Awoon]

Why argue. Jesus had an advantage over the rest of us .

"Follow me."....Jesus

That's like a Duck trying to teach a Chicken how to swim.

 

[Quiddity]

(1) If Jesus' father was mortal, then Jesus could not have been born of a virgin.

Nope…..Mary's humanity did not have to be changed to carry Christ.... that is a common misconception. One has nothing to do with the other.

(2) If Jesus was born of a virgin, he had to have been the Son of God.

No, He could have been born like everybody else if He so choose to.

(3) If a virgin conceived a child, the father must have had divine powers.

Or Darth Vader with demi-god powers. This doesn’t follow logically.

(4) Human men do not have divine powers.

Like Moses splitting the Red Sea? He obviously had divine powers there. But they weren’t his to own; but rather given.

 

[9Westy9]

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 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?

Argument looks sound. A big if in premise 2 though. Without a further premise or conclusion though, it seems as though the argument concludes that Jesus cannot have been born of a virgin

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nope…..Mary's humanity did not have to be changed to carry Christ.... that is a common misconception. One has nothing to do with the other.

No, He could have been born like everybody else if He so choose to.

Or Darth Vader with demi-god powers. This doesn’t follow logically.

Like Moses splitting the Red Sea? He obviously had divine powers there. But they weren’t his to own; but rather given.

Well done. :clap (Although I think you meant "Joseph" in the first line, since the argument was about Jesus' father).