The virgin birth story.

[Rainbow Mage]

Paul was mostly writing to established congregations...they didnt need to be convinced of the virgin birth because they already knew about it

why would Paul waste time and energy writing about things that were already established?

It's a stretch to assume they ascribed themselves to such a fabulous belief if Paul doesn't mention it, especially in the beginnings of a religion. Any religion I've ever studied the history of most of the fabulous, outrageous beliefs came later. I'd assume Christianity has been no different. Gnosticism is actually a part of Christianity's history, and the Gnostic texts don't outright confirm or validate the virgin birth. The Gospel of Phillip comes closest.

I will say this, whoever wrote the birth narratives didn't understand Jewish marriage custom very well.

 

[fallingblood]

I will say this, whoever wrote the birth narratives didn't understand Jewish marriage custom very well.

Can you expand?

 

[fallingblood]

I just want to mention Paul briefly. We don't have evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth. He never says it, or suggests it, so we can't say anything about it.

Now, Paul did say that Jesus was the Son of God; however, for Paul's understanding, a virgin birth is not needed because Jesus becomes important to Paul after the resurrection. More so, Paul never explains what he actually means. So it is shaky at best, and really, gives us no reason in which to assume Paul believed in a virgin story. Especially when Paul specifically tells us that Jesus was born of the law, of a woman, and never mentions anything about a special birth at all.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Can you expand?

Sure. Matthew says that Joseph took Mary into his home, but didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. That would make their marriage invalid by the Jewish custom of that time, because consummation of the marriage was a requirement.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I just want to mention Paul briefly. We don't have evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth. He never says it, or suggests it, so we can't say anything about it.

Now, Paul did say that Jesus was the Son of God; however, for Paul's understanding, a virgin birth is not needed because Jesus becomes important to Paul after the resurrection. More so, Paul never explains what he actually means. So it is shaky at best, and really, gives us no reason in which to assume Paul believed in a virgin story. Especially when Paul specifically tells us that Jesus was born of the law, of a woman, and never mentions anything about a special birth at all.

Well for one, is there anything to actually suggest that the Jesus of Paul was a man? It seems the Jesus that Paul knew was a spirit, a mystic Christ if you will.

 

[fallingblood]

Well for one, is there anything to actually suggest that the Jesus of Paul was a man? It seems the Jesus that Paul knew was a spirit, a mystic Christ if you will.

Paul clearly thought Jesus was a man. We see this by Paul saying that Jesus had a brother (James) and mentions other siblings of Jesus. Paul also tells us that Jesus was born of a woman, under the law (labeling him a Jew), of the flesh.

Paul tells us very clearly that Jesus was a human. The reason why Jesus, in some instances, is talked about in a more mystic, or spiritual way, is because Paul was more interested in the risen Jesus. For Paul, Jesus really became important because of the resurrection, and at that time took on a spiritual nature. So it becomes important to separate what Paul has to say about a risen Jesus, and a physical Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

Sure. Matthew says that Joseph took Mary into his home, but didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. That would make their marriage invalid by the Jewish custom of that time, because consummation of the marriage was a requirement.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the marriage was invalid. As far as we know, Joseph could have taken Mary as a wife just prior to the birth of Jesus. They didn't have to consummate their marriage that night. They did have some time. That in itself does not suggest that the author was unaware of Jewish marriage regulations.

 

[Wa Dok]

Consider the human possiblity that Joseph adored Mary. Consider that Mary was attending her Aunt Elizabeth in a late and difficult pregnancy. Consider that Zacharias was in close quarters with Mary while she helped Elizabeth. Consider the described personality of Zacharias and later the son John as he was baptizing people in the wilderness to cleanse them of their sins and giving them a chance to reconstruct their lives anew. Zacharias was an influential man. He was a rated member of his community. If he raped Mary, could she have had any chance to be heard if she had brought this to light? If Mary told her story to Joseph, I am sure he would have spoken whatever he had to in order to preserve her honor. Buut, I am also sure he would never have charged Zacharias with any violation.
Now, to me, this takes nothing away from Jesus or His ministry. It takes away the virgin story and might threaten the Catholic and other Christian disciplines, but it takes nothing away from the acts of Jesus, His words, or His story at all. In fact, it accounts for many actions; especially if He was aware of His origin and Joseph had disclosed the truth to Him as he became declared a man.
Please do not let this idea disturb you. It's just my belief that Jesus was a man and not born of a virgin.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I just want to mention Paul briefly. We don't have evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth. He never says it, or suggests it, so we can't say anything about it.

Now, Paul did say that Jesus was the Son of God; however, for Paul's understanding, a virgin birth is not needed because Jesus becomes important to Paul after the resurrection. More so, Paul never explains what he actually means. So it is shaky at best, and really, gives us no reason in which to assume Paul believed in a virgin story. Especially when Paul specifically tells us that Jesus was born of the law, of a woman, and never mentions anything about a special birth at all.

Paul does say that Jesus is the son of God;
and in Paul's understanding it was necessary for Jesus to be figured in all things as that other son of God, Adam.
To Paul Jesus is not like the fathers or the prophets, Jesus is God's son who is appointed heir of all things.
Jesus is the only begotten son of God, born of a woman, born under the law, whom all the angels of God worship.
Paul describes Jesus as having a special status, purpose and origin (beyond even that of Adam) which is proved by Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
　
I am entirely assured that to understand Paul's treatment of Jesus one must assume a knowledge of the virgin birth.
Paul never says 'virgin birth' but he writes it as an underlying feature of his reasoning.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Sure. Matthew says that Joseph took Mary into his home, but didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. That would make their marriage invalid by the Jewish custom of that time, because consummation of the marriage was a requirement.

Joseph did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus' birth because he understood from the law that he should not, and was, possibly, also forbidden by the angel.
He was 'minded to put her away' that is he took thought as to whether or not he should divorce Mary.
They were married, by reason of their espousal, with all the force of law and custom; not consummating the marriage did not stop it from being a marriage.
　
The modern day counterpart would be found on the steps of the church, or registry, as the bride and groom were leaving, not before they entered.
At that time a man, who found his wife to be pregnant, would consider divorce as Joseph was required to.

 

[fallingblood]

I am entirely assured that to understand Paul's treatment of Jesus one must assume a knowledge of the virgin birth.
Paul never says 'virgin birth' but he writes it as an underlying feature of his reasoning.

There is no reason to assume that Paul had a knowledge of the virgin birth. Especially when, even though he had all the chance to state exactly that. Yet, when talking about the Jesus, and how he was born, he never mentions Mary being a virgin. Instead, he gives us the reason to assume it was a natural birth. Paul tells us that Jesus was born of the flesh, of a woman, under the law. There is no suggestion that it was a miraculous birth, and Paul simply does not allude to that.

Now, I'm not denying that Paul though of Jesus as the son of God. However, I would argue that Paul probably though of King David as the Son of God as well, even though Paul recognized both of them as born of purely natural means.

Really though, we can not assume Paul knows of something because another writer states it. Paul never mentions a virgin birth, never alludes to it, and really, has no need for it. Especially when he suggest otherwise.

 

[confusedius]

I find it odd that in Matthew, everything is sorted out with dreams. Five pages in and you have already four or five dreams. Hard to put a lot of credence in something like that, especially when you have your own vivid dreams from time to time...

James

 

[outhouse]

I find no credibility or should i say historicity in any material before jesus was 30

You dont find much more after 30

It all comes down to sources for the two gospels, where did they get the material??? orally? more then likely. But who told these storys to them .????

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I think there must have been a very not widespread idea that Jesus had a virgin birth that inspired Matthew and Luke to write their narratives. I say it wasn't widespread, because no other books mention it, not even the other two Christian gospels. The fact that the narratives differ shows that the idea wasn't developed very well until they developed it.

 

[dmgdnooc]

There is no reason to assume that Paul had a knowledge of the virgin birth. Especially when, even though he had all the chance to state exactly that. Yet, when talking about the Jesus, and how he was born, he never mentions Mary being a virgin. Instead, he gives us the reason to assume it was a natural birth. Paul tells us that Jesus was born of the flesh, of a woman, under the law. There is no suggestion that it was a miraculous birth, and Paul simply does not allude to that.

Now, I'm not denying that Paul though of Jesus as the son of God. However, I would argue that Paul probably though of King David as the Son of God as well, even though Paul recognized both of them as born of purely natural means.

Really though, we can not assume Paul knows of something because another writer states it. Paul never mentions a virgin birth, never alludes to it, and really, has no need for it. Especially when he suggest otherwise.

To say that 'there is no reason' requires that you ignore the reasons I have given.
This you have done.
　
And repeating that 'there is no suggestion (in Paul) that it was a miraculous birth' misses the fact that Jesus' birth, his generation and origin (although different to), was every bit as miraculous as Adam's.
Jesus is 'the seed of the woman', the 'man gotten of Yahweh', God's son of the long ago promise.
　
I know that it is unfashionable to place the idea of the virgin birth among the roots of Christianity.
Nevertheles that is where it is to be found.
And there is, to my knowledge, not one thing written in the Gospels or letters that denies the idea and much that requires the assumption of the knowledge.

 

[1AOA1]

I find no credibility or should i say historicity in any material before jesus was 30

You dont find much more after 30

It all comes down to sources for the two gospels, where did they get the material??? orally? more then likely. But who told these storys to them .????

Don't the gospel records again already state how they got it?

 

[1AOA1]

I think there must have been a very not widespread idea that Jesus had a virgin birth that inspired Matthew and Luke to write their narratives. I say it wasn't widespread, because no other books mention it, not even the other two Christian gospels. The fact that the narratives differ shows that the idea wasn't developed very well until they developed it.

Weren't they recording covering different spectra of emphasis (John- love, etc)?

 

[fallingblood]

I think there must have been a very not widespread idea that Jesus had a virgin birth that inspired Matthew and Luke to write their narratives. I say it wasn't widespread, because no other books mention it, not even the other two Christian gospels. The fact that the narratives differ shows that the idea wasn't developed very well until they developed it.

I'd actually put the birth stories to be quite widespread. Primarily because both Matthew and Luke decided to include it in theirs independent of one another (or at least there were two stories circulating at that time).

If we go back, we can see that the idea of Jesus being the son of God (which would have been understood differently to a Jew and a Gentile) finds itself appearing already in Paul. The Gentiles, already being familiar with the idea of humans being the son of a god, would not have taken long to transform a birth story. Especially it if was to defend Jesus from the accusations of being a mamzer.

 

[fallingblood]

To say that 'there is no reason' requires that you ignore the reasons I have given.
This you have done.
　
And repeating that 'there is no suggestion (in Paul) that it was a miraculous birth' misses the fact that Jesus' birth, his generation and origin (although different to), was every bit as miraculous as Adam's.
Jesus is 'the seed of the woman', the 'man gotten of Yahweh', God's son of the long ago promise.
　
I know that it is unfashionable to place the idea of the virgin birth among the roots of Christianity.
Nevertheles that is where it is to be found.
And there is, to my knowledge, not one thing written in the Gospels or letters that denies the idea and much that requires the assumption of the knowledge.

The reasons you have given simply do not show that Paul believed in a virgin birth. Again, he states quite clearly that Jesus was born according to the flesh. This suggests that opposite of a virgin birth.

And really, there is no reason for the idea. The Gospels never really deal with it except in the context of the birth stories. John doesn't need it, as he claims that Jesus is something quite different. Mark never needs it, and never mentions anything of the like. And considering that one did not have to have a virgin birth to be considered the Son of God, there is little reason to assume that it was necessary to the story.

As for Paul, we can't assume he believed such an idea because he never states it, and never suggests it. When talking about Jesus being born, he never mentions anything miraculous. Instead, he explains it very simply. He was born according to the law. He was born to a woman. He was born of the flesh. There is nothing in those that suggest a miraculous birth.

The clincher really is that Paul did believe that Jesus was the Son of God. And mentioning a virgin birth would have been a great argument to defend that idea, and in fact, he had the perfect places to mention it. Yet, he never does. Because of that, we can't assume he believed in it.

Really though, there is no reason to believe that Paul did believe such an idea. To believe that God impregnated a woman, in the same manner that pagan gods were said to have consorted with earthly women, would not have been a Jewish idea.

 

[outhouse]

Don't the gospel records again already state how they got it?

No they dont, with historicity

remember, most of the gospels are written by unknown authors.

Paul letters are one that I know to be half original, the other half are suspected forgery's