The virgin birth story.

[averageJOE]

One realistic possibility:
Mary drank too much wine one day, got drunk and blacked out. Some random sheep hearder was walking by saw her passed out and had his way with her. She wakes up with absolute no memory of what happened to her. Couple of months later she finds out she's pregnant and thinks god did it. The rest is history.

 

[dmgdnooc]

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.

Romans 1.3 (the gospel of God) 'Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh'.
Refers to his lineage through Mary.
1.4 'And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.'
Refers to Jesus' paternal lineage, according to the spirit of holiness, that was not confirmed by the word of Mary alone but also, and most importantly to Paul, was declared by the resurrection from the dead.
　
Jesus is the son of 2 parents; Mary according to the flesh and God according to the spirit of holiness.
Quoting a single phrase from a couplet does nothing to help your case.
　
You conflate 'a' son of God with 'the' son of God.
Those to whom the word came are 'gods', yet they are not God the Father, Yahweh creator of heaven and earth.
'A' son and 'the' son require a similar discernment.
　
As you said to Egyptian Phoenix 'I'd actually put the birth stories to be quite widespread'.
You recognise in that post (#38) the force and currency demonstrated by the virgin birth account appearing in differing aspect in 2 of the Gospels.
Mark (the first of the Gospels) begins in a hurry with the baptism and proceeds in a hurry to the ministry, crucifiction and resurrection; I am not surprised that his haste ommitted details of Jesus' birth but he takes care to open with 'Jesus Christ, the Son of God'..
John begins with less haste but still does not recount the details of his subject's birth.
What he does say is things like Jesus was 'the only begotten of the Father' 'the word made flesh', 'his only begotten son'.
Any suggestion that John thinks other than Jesus' coming into the world was anything other than miraculously by the direct agency of God is absurd.
God 'begot' Jesus according to John. Put the word 'begot' in its scriptural context.
　
Paul knew that, Gal 4.4, 'God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law'.
Paul recognises that Jesus has 2 parents, a father (God) and a mother (Mary); Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recognise this fact also; and care is taken to clearly enunciate the fact.
　
A question; Paul never mentions that Mary is the mother of Jesus, do you suppose that he was unaware of the lady's name or was it just that the detail was not suited to his subject?

Paul had one 'great argument' that proved Jesus' paternity, the resurrection from the dead.
He hammered the point over and over and over again.
He had no need to seek recourse to Mary's witness, such an appeal to another's authority, apart from being out of character, would have undermined the thrust and impact of his argument and not strengthened it.
　
God did not deal with Mary as pagan gods are said to consort with mortals.
The suggestion lacks sensitivity and sensibility, the lady remained a virgin.
　
That a woman could have a seed is not a Jewish idea, but its there in the scripture, at its foundation so to speak.
Eve understood that the promised seed would be from/with Yahweh; but her understanding was imperfect, Cain was not from Yahweh, he was from Adam.
Agur asked (Proverbs 30.4) 'who hath established the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?'
Yeah, its not a Jewish idea, but its in the scriptures.
　

 

[fallingblood]

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

However, just to clarify. Not knowing who the authors are means very little considering that was the norm for Jewish writings during that time. It was the norm in many areas to not put an authorship on the work. Many times, it simply was not needed.

 

[fallingblood]

One realistic possibility:
Mary drank too much wine one day, got drunk and blacked out. Some random sheep hearder was walking by saw her passed out and had his way with her. She wakes up with absolute no memory of what happened to her. Couple of months later she finds out she's pregnant and thinks god did it. The rest is history.

It's a possibility, but not very probable. Especially considering that throughout the Gospels, besides the actual birth narratives, no one seems aware of such.

 

[fallingblood]

Romans 1.3 (the gospel of God) 'Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh'.
Refers to his lineage through Mary.
1.4 'And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.'
Refers to Jesus' paternal lineage, according to the spirit of holiness, that was not confirmed by the word of Mary alone but also, and most importantly to Paul, was declared by the resurrection from the dead.

Why would Paul mention a lineage through Mary if it meant absolutely nothing? If Jesus was descended from David through Mary, it would be void. Primarily because lineage was traced through the father. More so, the passage says nothing about Mary, or tracing a lineage through her. It specifically states that Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. In other ways, he was born according to the flesh, he was conceived according to the flesh.

And Jesus being declared to be the Son of God has nothing to do with his paternal lineage. There is no mention of such. You are reading the Gospels into the works of Paul, and that simply doesn't fly. Especially when we consider that one did not have to have an actual paternal lineage descending from God to be the Son of God. King David was called the Son of God, yet it is accepted he had a natural birth.

Unless one adds to the story of what Paul is saying, there is no reason to assume that Paul was aware of the virgin birth. All you've done here is simply read the Gospels into the works of Paul, which simply is not good scholarship.
　

Jesus is the son of 2 parents; Mary according to the flesh and God according to the spirit of holiness.
Quoting a single phrase from a couplet does nothing to help your case.

Actually it does, as the verse I used says nothing of what you're saying. It doesn't say Jesus was born of God according to the spirit of holiness or anything about Mary. None of that is in the actual verse. You have added a large amount of information that simply does not appear in the actual verse.
　

You conflate 'a' son of God with 'the' son of God.
Those to whom the word came are 'gods', yet they are not God the Father, Yahweh creator of heaven and earth.
'A' son and 'the' son require a similar discernment.

King David was called the Son of God. I'm not conflating anything here. The fact is others were called the Son of God. You simply can't ignore the fact that the Old Testament labeled others as the Son of God, when not implying that God actually impregnated anyone.

As for other characters, Pagans, who were the son of a god, it simply shows that it was not a special characteristic of Jesus. That various important people were labeled as such.
　

As you said to Egyptian Phoenix 'I'd actually put the birth stories to be quite widespread'.
You recognise in that post (#38) the force and currency demonstrated by the virgin birth account appearing in differing aspect in 2 of the Gospels.
Mark (the first of the Gospels) begins in a hurry with the baptism and proceeds in a hurry to the ministry, crucifiction and resurrection; I am not surprised that his haste ommitted details of Jesus' birth but he takes care to open with 'Jesus Christ, the Son of God'..
John begins with less haste but still does not recount the details of his subject's birth.
What he does say is things like Jesus was 'the only begotten of the Father' 'the word made flesh', 'his only begotten son'.
Any suggestion that John thinks other than Jesus' coming into the world was anything other than miraculously by the direct agency of God is absurd.
God 'begot' Jesus according to John. Put the word 'begot' in its scriptural context.

You are reading way too much into the stories. Yes, the stories may be widespread, but that means absolutely nothing accept that the story was being widespread. We see a story of Augustus being the son of a god being widespread and being mentioned in various literature. Should we thus assume that he was the son of a god? Or that Caesar was a god? Or even that there were many other gods? Your logic simply does not work here.

As for Mark, there is no reason to assume that Mark thought of Jesus being born of a virgin. Being called Son of God does not mean that one is the actual, physical, son of God. Like I have said before, King David was called the son of God. Yet, no one thought that his actual father was God. The term did not need that. The whole nation of Israel was called the Son of God. The term did not simply mean someone being the actual physical son of God. You need to know the background of the term.

As for John, there is no reason to assume that they thought Jesus was the physical son of God. He never states that. He may say that Jesus was begotten by God, but again, it isn't a very good translation anyway. That is why it has been dropped from the best translations. There is no reason to assume then that the verse actually said that. Again, it just refers to Jesus as being the Son of God, just like King David was.
　

Paul knew that, Gal 4.4, 'God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law'.
Paul recognises that Jesus has 2 parents, a father (God) and a mother (Mary); Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recognise this fact also; and care is taken to clearly enunciate the fact.

Paul doesn't recognize that. He never said that his father was God. He said that God sent forth his Son. That has nothing to do with physically having a child with Mary though. Especially considering that God has sent his son various times before, such as King David.

　
A question; Paul never mentions that Mary is the mother of Jesus, do you suppose that he was unaware of the lady's name or was it just that the detail was not suited to his subject?

It simply wasn't important to him, really is all that can be said. He never mentions that she was a virgin either, which shows that it wasn't important, or he simply was not aware of it. The thing that can be said; from Paul, one can not make the assumption that Mary was the mother of Jesus.

Paul had one 'great argument' that proved Jesus' paternity, the resurrection from the dead.
He hammered the point over and over and over again.
He had no need to seek recourse to Mary's witness, such an appeal to another's authority, apart from being out of character, would have undermined the thrust and impact of his argument and not strengthened it.

He never hammered the point and point over again. He never states that God is the actual father of Jesus. He never mentions that Jesus's mother was a virgin. He never mentions a miraculous birth. Instead, he states that Jesus was born of the flesh, giving the assumption that it is a natural birth.
　

God did not deal with Mary as pagan gods are said to consort with mortals.
The suggestion lacks sensitivity and sensibility, the lady remained a virgin.

Which is exactly why there is little reason to assume that a Jewish writer would make such a ridiculous claim. For Paul, the idea that God impregnated Mary would have been ridiculous, and probably sacrilegious.
　

That a woman could have a seed is not a Jewish idea, but its there in the scripture, at its foundation so to speak.
Eve understood that the promised seed would be from/with Yahweh; but her understanding was imperfect, Cain was not from Yahweh, he was from Adam.
Agur asked (Proverbs 30.4) 'who hath established the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?'
Yeah, its not a Jewish idea, but its in the scriptures.
　

It isn't in the scriptures. The scriptures never mention a virgin birth, until we come to Luke and Matthew. Other than that, the Old Testament never state such a thing, and neither does Paul.

 

[1AOA1]

No they dont, with historicity

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

Don't the records already state the authors?

 

[fallingblood]

Don't the records already state the authors?

No. The Gospels, as we have them now, do have authors attributed to them in the Titles. However, those Titles (such as, the Gospel According to Mark) were added at a later time.

 

[1AOA1]

No. The Gospels, as we have them now, do have authors attributed to them in the Titles.

Isn't the attachment of the author's name by the author meant to show that he is the one who wrote it?

However, those Titles (such as, the Gospel According to Mark) were added at a later time.

Who determined that?

 

[outhouse]

Who determined that?

people hundreds of years later

 

[outhouse]

One realistic possibility:
Mary drank too much wine one day, got drunk and blacked out. Some random sheep hearder was walking by saw her passed out and had his way with her. She wakes up with absolute no memory of what happened to her. Couple of months later she finds out she's pregnant and thinks god did it. The rest is history.

My personal take is that ancient hebrews had to keep up with the jones so to speak.

other myths of other deitys had offspring due to virgin births. A religious aspect so important as this at the later date written could not put less of a story then most of the mythilogical storys of that time.

 

[outhouse]

Don't the records already state the authors?

A good read for you bud would be wiki gospels, look into the gospel of all 4 and it gives a very good read on the history involved to date

 

[1AOA1]

A good read for you bud would be wiki gospels, look into the gospel of all 4 and it gives a very good read on the history involved to date

I have . Do you have anything else (those weren't adequate to overturn authorship)?

 

[fallingblood]

Isn't the attachment of the author's name by the author meant to show that he is the one who wrote it?

We can take the Gospel of John for an example. In it, we see people (this is a few decades after it is written), debating who actually wrote the Gospel, which John it was. So we have at least one example of the authorship being debated.

However, we know the attachment was later. One easy reason we can see just by the Title is the last part: the "According to ....". We know authors don't phrase their authorship that way. It would be more logical to have simply titled it, "A Gospel" or even "the Gospel of Mark." The title as now stands simply would have been awkward for the author to have attached.

Who determined that?

It's nearly universally accepted by scholars.

 

[1AOA1]

people hundreds of years later

Wow! Do you have an outline of their work and what they used to see it? Thanks

 

[fallingblood]

My personal take is that ancient hebrews had to keep up with the jones so to speak.

other myths of other deitys had offspring due to virgin births. A religious aspect so important as this at the later date written could not put less of a story then most of the mythilogical storys of that time.

The problem with that take though is that Hebrews already had a form of miraculous birth story that they used for important individuals. The birth of John the Baptist is an example of this. It was miraculously giving birth in an old age, after child bearing years. They really had no reason to create a new story.

 

[1AOA1]

We can take the Gospel of John for an example. In it, we see people (this is a few decades after it is written), debating who actually wrote the Gospel, which John it was. So we have at least one example of the authorship being debated.

Ok,

However, we know the attachment was later. One easy reason we can see just by the Title is the last part: the "According to ....". We know authors don't phrase their authorship that way. It would be more logical to have simply titled it, "A Gospel" or even "the Gospel of Mark." The title as now stands simply would have been awkward for the author to have attached.

Huh? Are you being serious with me?

It's nearly universally accepted by scholars.

Do you have an outline, sample or something from the universal scholars? Thanks

 

[outhouse]

The problem with that take though is that Hebrews already had a form of miraculous birth story that they used for important individuals. The birth of John the Baptist is an example of this. It was miraculously giving birth in an old age, after child bearing years. They really had no reason to create a new story.

john was not a central figure in any way shape or form.

john did not have court hearings discussing how divine he was hundreds of years after his death.

I have to believe there is a certain amount more fiction that goes with a projected deity

we know fiction was added , for this alone does not mean something unbelievable is fiction. But the light of proof now has to go on somthing solid to prove non fiction. so far nothing does.

 

[outhouse]

Wow! Do you have an outline of their work and what they used to see it? Thanks

Do you have an outline, sample or something from the universal scholars? Thanks

you said you researched wiki

that info was in said material, you may want to revisit the work

 

[fallingblood]

Huh? Are you being serious with me?

When we examine other works at that time, and around the time, the Gospel titles stick out like a sore thumb.

Do you have an outline, sample or something from the universal scholars? Thanks

Bart D. Ehrman gives a great account of this in either one of his easy to read books: Misquoting Jesus, or Interrupting Jesus. If possible, I will look for an account online, but that may take some time.

 

[fallingblood]

Do you have an outline, sample or something from the universal scholars? Thanks

Here is a good source of Matthew: Introduction to Matthew’s Gospel | NTGateway