The virgin birth story.

[1AOA1]

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

Well I did some scholarly work and found that I have a book titled 'by [author name]'. I looked up 'by' and found out on dictionary(dot) com, the 9th definition is 'according to'. Would you say it means 'according to [author's name] and this affects authorship?

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.

Ok

 

[outhouse]

Well I did some scholarly work

I dont think you know the definition without a google search

 

[1AOA1]

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

The main argument against it is that Matthew is widely agreed to be dependent for much of his information on Mark’s Gospel, and if Matthew were an eye-witness (as on the traditional view) it is unclear why this would be the case. The high level of verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark also suggests that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek, and not Hebrew (against the traditional account). Who, then, is the author?

​

Wow! So what happens if I don't agree that Matthew was dependent on Mark, and the common source is John 14:26?

 

[1AOA1]

I dont think you know the definition without a google search

I'm sorry, are you insulting me?

 

[fallingblood]

Well I did some scholarly work and found that I have a book titled 'by [author name]'. I looked up 'by' and found out on dictionary(dot) com, the 9th definition is 'according to'. Would you say it means 'according to [author's name] and this affects authorship?

Apples and oranges here. The Gospels are ancient pieces of works. We have to see them in light of that. We can't view them in the standards of modern day works, which authorship is much more important, or at least seen to be.

Also, the "by [authors name]" is not part of the Title in modern works.

 

[fallingblood]

The main argument against it is that Matthew is widely agreed to be dependent for much of his information on Mark’s Gospel, and if Matthew were an eye-witness (as on the traditional view) it is unclear why this would be the case. The high level of verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark also suggests that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek, and not Hebrew (against the traditional account). Who, then, is the author?

​

Wow! So what happens if I don't agree that Matthew was dependent on Mark, and the common source is John 14:26?

I'd say you'd have to put together a convincing argument as to why around a century of scholarship is wrong, as well as to why Matthew shares word for word passages with Mark; why there is a high level of verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark.

 

[Thief]

Did I miss it?

Is there a pivotal point to the issue?
If so....

What if you believe the story?
What if you don't?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"Is not the creation of man without father and mother, even though gradually, more difficult than if he had simply come into existence without a father? As you admit that the first man came into existence without father or mother—whether it be gradually or at once—there can remain no doubt that a man without a human father is also possible and admissible; you cannot consider this impossible; otherwise, you are illogical. " Abdulbaha - Some Answered Questions

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 87-88

 

[fallingblood]

"Is not the creation of man without father and mother, even though gradually, more difficult than if he had simply come into existence without a father? As you admit that the first man came into existence without father or mother—whether it be gradually or at once—there can remain no doubt that a man without a human father is also possible and admissible; you cannot consider this impossible; otherwise, you are illogical. " Abdulbaha - Some Answered Questions

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 87-88

The problem with the above quote is that it relies on the idea of the creation of man, when really, there is no reason to assume such happened. In fact, we know that evolution is a fact, and that humans evolved. So since "Adam" would have have a biological father and mother, then we should assume, by the above quote, that Jesus had both a biological mother and father. So no, according to the logic of the above post, it would not be possible for Jesus to be born without a father.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The problem with the above quote is that it relies on the idea of the creation of man, when really, there is no reason to assume such happened. In fact, we know that evolution is a fact, and that humans evolved. So since "Adam" would have have a biological father and mother, then we should assume, by the above quote, that Jesus had both a biological mother and father. So no, according to the logic of the above post, it would not be possible for Jesus to be born without a father.

I don't think it relies on the creation. The fact is that the first human, whether was created or evolved from a cell, had neither father nor mother.

If you say the first human was created then, he had no father or mother. If you say the first human was evolved from some cell, then still didn't have father or mother.
So, if a human without father or mother was possible, then a human without father but with mother is certainly possible, isn't it?

 

[outhouse]

I don't think it relies on the creation. The fact is that the first human, whether was created or evolved from a cell, had neither father nor mother.

are you still in high school ??? have you taken biology yet???

because your statement is incorrect and lacks a basic understanding of evolution

 

[InvestigateTruth]

because your statement is incorrect and lacks a basic understanding of evolution

Why? Can you explain?

 

[outhouse]

Why? Can you explain?

evolution doesnt make snap changes

these changes happen slowly

no child has ever not had a parent

 

[Pegg]

If someone asked me to write such a report I would start with a decent biology book and explain how life is created in all mammals. I would then point out the impossibilities involved in a "virgin" birth. But that's just me. I guess I'm not much help to you. Happy to help on engineering problems though )

lol havnt you heard of cloning? Test tube babies? Intro fertilization? No sex involved there

 

[outhouse]

lol havnt you heard of cloning? Test tube babies? Intro fertilization? No sex involved there

not only that pegg, a female reptile/dragon in a zoon produced young on its own

 

[dmgdnooc]

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.
　 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.
　 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.
　 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 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.
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.
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.
　 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.
　 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.

Jesus' lineage through Mary does not mean 'absolutely nothing'.
Jesus' lineage through Mary means a great deal; he was also formed of the clay, as we are, that he might be a mediator touched with the feeling of our infirmities, in all points tempted like us.
You are dodging the meaning of the couplet that counts Jesus generation to be first of God 'concerning his Son' and then of the seed of David 'according to the flesh' and declared, or proven to be, 'according to the spirit of holiness' by the resurrection from the dead.
　
You say that I am 'reading the Gospels into the works of Paul'.
To which I must reply that there is no reason to assume that Paul was unaware of Jesus' parentage as described by the Gospels.
Traditionally; 2, at least, of the Gospel writers are closely associated with Paul; Mark and Luke.
And I must add that you appear to be treating Paul in isolation, as well as fragmenting his reasoning, as though he had no discourse with Mark, Luke or the other Apostles.
For when you say that 'he (Jesus) was conceived according to the flesh' you are adding your own interpretation and subtracting Paul's first clause 'concerning his Son'.
And Paul never assumes Jesus to be of anything other than divine origin, of being generated by the will of God and through His direct agency.
　
　
You will have to provide quotes to support your assertion that 'the' son of God is a widely used descriptor.
My understanding is that a righteous man might be termed 'a' son of God.
Perhaps you are confusing 'divi filius' (son of a god) with the scriptural usage.
You are certainly fudging the NT usage of 'the' son of God, which is exclusively used to denote Jesus.
　
You are right, the half of the couplet that you quote says nothing about Jesus paternal link with God; its opening clause and the other half of the couplet does.
The verses are contiguous, they use similar phrasing and describe the dual nature that was unique to Jesus; and that Paul expands on later in the epistle.
There is no good reason to take one half of the couplet out of its context and display it as though it was a complete statement.
　
Yeah, well, again how about some references to passages where 'the' son of God is generally applied.
Where someone is said to be the 'begotten' son of God.
　
I am reading what is in the scriptures, without regard to pagan or Jewish traditional usage.
And stories of Augustus' descent from Apollo (or Venus) or Alexander's descent from Zeus (or Ammon) have no bearing on the descent described in Genesis or Proverbs or Luke.
What the stories of Augustus etc show is that the concept would not need to be hammered home to Paul's audience; it was an idea that had familiar currency throughout the Empire.
And the details of Jesus' birth were of secondary, or even tertiary, importance to Paul's principle theme of the resurrection.
There was no value to the thrust of his argument in introducing unnecessary complications that might serve to distract from his main theme; the birth, the ministry, the politics, all have minor significance in his writings; the resurrection proved all to Paul.
Yet even so, Paul is always careful to discriminate between Jesus' natural and spiritual natures.
　
So, what is the scriptural context of the word 'begot'?
John uses it repeatedly to describe God's relationship to Jesus; what does it mean?
My understanding is that it denotes the direct agency of generation, procreation, Fathership, paternal parentage, of an offspring.
If my understanding is correct then John, most certainly, states that Jesus is the procreated 'physical son of God' the one-of-a-kind son of God, the 'mono-genos' son of God.
I'm not surprised that the 'best' translations would seek to obscure that Jesus and David, although similar, are also radically different.
　
You keep saying that David was 'the' son of God, on a par with the 'only begotten son of God'.
I'm interested in your scriptural references to this.
　
And the fact is that a 'seed of the woman' makes no sense without a virgin birth.
For, surely you understand that, a woman cannot generate 'seed'.
However, when you understand the paradox of a woman generating seed then you will also understand Jesus' descent from David through Mary.
And how it is that, being David's son, David calls him Lord.
　
From this conversation, so far, I assume that you also do not believe the resurrection.
Is this assumption correct?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I've always wondered why the other 2 gospels have no mention of it. I would think that something that important would have been included.

It might not have been known by Mark and John. If the story came from the lost "Q" Gospel, you would expect it to only be in Mathew and Luke.

It is one of the least likely story of all, in terms of scientific possibility. in a virgin birth the progeny can only be female, as there is no Y chromosome available.

 

[Thief]

I see no response stepping up to the situation....

Being born of virginity is a sign from God.

So far...denial...science...scripture...etc...

What if it really is a question of faith and believing?
No one here can affirm Mary's virtue.

And as we stand in the afterlife....will we not meet her?
Say again...her 'virtue' was not intact?...to her face?
That she lied to the angel?...not having known a man?

And what of the Son of God?...will He not be displeased...your speech?

But I'm a rogue theologian...and not given to dogma.
And the afterlife is pending.
And these people we speak of are either dead altogether....or waiting for us.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't think it relies on the creation. The fact is that the first human, whether was created or evolved from a cell, had neither father nor mother.

If you say the first human was created then, he had no father or mother. If you say the first human was evolved from some cell, then still didn't have father or mother.
So, if a human without father or mother was possible, then a human without father but with mother is certainly possible, isn't it?

Actually, with evolution, an individual would have a father and mother. The parents would be slightly different, but they would still be parents.

 

[fallingblood]

I see no response stepping up to the situation....

Being born of virginity is a sign from God.

So far...denial...science...scripture...etc...

What if it really is a question of faith and believing?
No one here can affirm Mary's virtue.

And as we stand in the afterlife....will we not meet her?
Say again...her 'virtue' was not intact?...to her face?
That she lied to the angel?...not having known a man?

And what of the Son of God?...will He not be displeased...your speech?

But I'm a rogue theologian...and not given to dogma.
And the afterlife is pending.
And these people we speak of are either dead altogether....or waiting for us.

If one accepts the virgin birth, it is based on faith. That is fine. However, historically, it can not be shown to be the case. If Jesus was born of a virgin, that would constitute a miracle, and miracles are not verifiable by history as they are the least likely thing to occur.

I'm not a theologian, and hence, I have little want to write about theology. I am more of a historian, and that is how I look at the Bible. Thus, the virgin birth, even though possible, is highly improbable.