In honor of Christmas I thought I'd pop the questions.....
1. Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin? Why or Why not?
2. How has this belief changed the way you live?
John
The paradox of insular language
7 months ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
do i dare be the first one to say anything?
the answer is, i don't know. it's difficult for me to think differently because it is a mainstay in the christian faith tradition. i had never heard differently until i specifically looked deeper. but the older i get, the less i think it matters. i don't think it's necessary that that have happened for Jesus to still be who he says he was.
i also find it interesting that so many ancient religions that came before the Jewish faith tradition and the Christian faith claim to have had a savior born of a virgin as well. it makes you wonder...well, lots of things.
it's scary to question deeply held beliefs that are so important to some people. but my answer is i don't know, and i don't know if it matters. and by saying i don't know if it matters, that is not to say that the question isn't valid, because it's always important to examine the beliefs we hold so close to us. i mean that i believe Jesus was who he says he was regardless.
maybe someone here can convince me.
Well said my friend. Thanks for getting things started.
The question must be answered in light of the imperial Roman Empire at which the early church is in competition with. I believe in oral Torah(teachings) and memory..Paul made no reference to a virgin birth..and Paul write before the narrative Gospels appear..
We understand stories to be truth bearing..or to hold value for being told. The telling of a viring birth account is to put in the context of the Roman Imperial system. The Caesar's were born of virgins and called the son/s of god/s. The early church had to say our guy is in there 2. The importance is not the virgin conception but the community and grace and peace message of the jesus movement.
Obviously this is matter of faith (not blind unbelief, mind you)but I find it interesting that the question is raised at all. Clearly a God who is capable of the creation of this awesome universe in which we reside as well as all the life within it is certainly capable of creating another life in whatever way he chose. Futhermore, I think it adds some beautiful wonder to the grace of a loving God that is so evident in the incarnation.
It seems to me to be another instance of attempts to chip away at some of the foundational beauty inherent in God's incomprehensible pursuit of relationship with the creation he made in his own image..
Ooops! I just reread what I wrote and was chagrined to recognize that I expressed myself poorly!! It could be taken as a personal attack on you, John, and please be assured that it was not. Though I see it could be interpreted as such, I was really thinking in generic terms and did not intend for it to come out the way it did. Sorry!
Hey guys. As I read through your comments I found myself agreeing with all of you even though you all have expressed different views. Blair, you are quite correct in saying 'I don't know', because ultimately the answer to this question is unknowable, especially as it relates to factual and historical truth. Mike, I couldn't agree with you more, we must continue to insure our biblical truths arise from the historical and political culture in which they were birthed. And JSC or DAD, you are also correct, this is a matter of faith which means a person will either be convinced or he will not. I also agree that a God who could create and sustain our immense and complex universe could also manage to impregnate a virgin but that for me is not a convincing arguement. Just because God could manage such a feat doesn't mean he did.
I find it curious that Paul, author of more NT books then anyone and father of Christianity never mentions the Virgin Birth, in fact he even seems to emphasize Jesus' human parents. The Gospel of Mark, the earliest account of the life and teaching of Jesus also never mentions it. Nor does John. Matthew and Luke are the only ones to mention the virgin birth and even they tell the story differently. This seems to indicate it wasn't all that important to the life and mission of Jesus and furthermore casts doubt on it being a literal historical occurance. That being said, if I found out tomorrow that Jesus was indeed literally born of a virgin that fact wouldn't change how I live. It would still be just as important for me to love, serve, practice humility and seek God. I am a Christian because I believe Jesus demonstrated best how to live life on earth and how that life can be eternal. When all our focus is put on his supernatural powers of healing, miraculous birth, power to read minds and special ability to defeat death Jesus stops being a real example I can follow and instead becomes a comic book hero that I'm impressed by, say wow to, but don't take seriously beyond the page.
I would add a couple of things to think about in response to the comments.
1)It seems odd to me that Matthew and Luke would need to "keep up with the Joneses" so to speak and add the virgin birth in because that's what the Roman Empire believed of their kings. When I read the gospels they seem in many ways trying to do things different than the current empire and worldview was doing. That being said, more knowledge of the context and culture of Jesus life is almost always a good thing.
2)It would make sense that Matthew anyway would make a point of mentioning the virgin birth since he was writing for Jews, and Isaiah 700 or so years before in chapter 7 writes 14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [b] will call him Immanuel."
3)I don't know that Jesus came to just give us a model for living, although there is part of that. I think much more he came to show us how much God loves us, and to once and for all conquer the sin that ultimately destroys us, so that we can once again (like Adam and Eve) have a true relationship with Him, and even more so, be changed and renewed by His life in us - as Paul said in Colossians - "Christ in you, the hope of glory"
Merry Christmas all!
I've enjoyed the thinking here.
I think all questions of historicity (including Biblical hisoricity) should be viewed not in isolation, but against a background of well-established empirical data. Even though virgin births can't be ruled out a priori, especially when you allow for a peculiar brand of divine intervention, we have no empirical evidence that they have occured; whereas, we do know that billions of non-virgin births have occured, that sexual impropriety is not uncommon, and that people often lie (particularly in matters of sexual impropriety). Sticking with what we know, it seems likely to me that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, and that Mary lied about it.
But even if you find the above explanation implausible, you've still got Hume to contend with: A miracle is by definition improbable, which means alternative non-miraculous explanations don't necessarily have to be plausible in and of themselves; they merely have to be more probable than the corresponding miraculous explanation. In other words, even if it can be shown that alternative explanations to the virgin birth hypothesis are implausible, that won't necessarily give us justification for believing in the virgin birth.
As to the second question: Seeing as how I'm an atheist, I think I can safely say disbelief in the virgin birth hasn't had much of an impact on the way I live;-)
Tangent: Regarding the idea that a God capable of creating the universe would also be capable of effecting a virgin birth: As someone who has dabbled (ineffectually, I'll admit) in computer programming, I can tell you that manipulating a preexisting system (e.g., debugging, refactoring, etc.) can be exponentially more difficult than designing one. Meta-tangent: Also, couldn't anyone create a universe like ours if they existed eternally and had enough raw power? Just keep creating universes, rolling the dice each time, until you stumble upon one that interests you. It would be like winning at craps;-)
As you know, John I'm a slow thinker who likes to chew on ideas for awhile. Well, here are a couple that have occurred to me.
It should be no surprise that Paul didn't write about the virgin birth. In fact he wrote very little about the historical events concerning Jesus. His focus was theological, particularly surrounding the consequences of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He focussed om the grace and love of God expressed in providing us with imputed holiness and urging us to grow into the effects of that holiness.
"Be holy as I am holy."
Second, As Wade mentioned Matthew was writing into and for the Jewish historical consciousness. Thus the details of Jesus' birth and life were inportant in that context. On the other hand, Luke worked diligently to compile a complete history of Jesus for his Greek friend Theophilus. It's clear from his writing that one of his principal sources was Peter, who would in all probability have read the gospel. To suggest such detailed description is "invented" - for whatever reason - would require that these writers and their sources were blatant liars. Since this flies in the face of evrything they lived for, were committed to and even died defending is not plausibe.
Great stuff guys. Wade thanks for stopping by. Good thoughts. As far as your comment regarding the gospel writers "keeping up with the Joneses" - I think to some extent that's exactly what they were doing. As Entrepreneurs they had no choice. We must view the gospels as they were intended -first century sales pitches proclaiming Jesus is Lord, Jesus is King all Allegiance to Jesus which of course meant Caesar is not and Rome will not have the last say (see Revelation).
Speaking to different audiences the gospel writers were all saying this same thing and to do that meant they had to not only speak the language of their competition but do one better. Being a business man myself, I appluad their marketing efforts.
Jordan, I appreciate your thoughtful words. Obviously we differ in our belief systems but that doesn't mean you can't come over for Christmas Eve and watch It's a Wonderful Life and eat snacks. Be there. Those of us who believe know that science and reason play crucial roles in helping to explain how our world works but will never be able to explain the underneath or "more" of human existence, meaning and purpose. It's like trying to compose a formula for falling in love or drafting an intuition plan that informs our choices in the moment. Human reason will never be able to fully explain the complexities of what makes us human. After all, if it could, we would expect us to already be living at a higher level.
JSC, regarding Paul and the Gospel writers. The fact that the Virgin Birth didn't factor into Paul's Christology logically means it either wasn't important or didn't occur. Either/or should change how we approach Christmas.
As far as as the Gospel writers inventing the Virgin Birth, I don't believe they did. I think they knew it didn't occur. They were writing a new myth for a new world. And by myth, I don't mean lie, I mean sacred story.
Thanks for having me John - as they say, "long time listener, first time caller". You can thank Jay for putting a link to here on his blog.
to answer your original questions - Yes, I do believe in the virgin birth. I don't know that it has directly changed the way I live, although my belief that Jesus is who He says He is comes in part through this, the one Isaiah prophesied about.
A question I would respectfully ask is why not believe in the virgin birth? Does it make the gospel easier to sell to those we encounter each day? I would say that getting rid of the "unreasonable" or hard to believe parts doesn't really sell anybody, it only takes away some of the mystery and beauty of the story, and causes those encountering it to ask what else is just made up. It also makes it easier to throw out the parts we don't like.
I would agree that there are things traditionally held as fact that have since been understood differently, such as the creation account and others, but I don't think this is in the same boat. At this stage we can't prove whther the virgin birth did or didn't happen based on our science. It's true it hasn't happened since, but I don't find that a reason not to believe since Jesus was a bit unique.
I believe Jesus had to be born of a virgin because sin has entered humanity. A perfect sacrifice was required to set the world right. If not, why did God have to send His son? Why not use some empowered person to show the way and do what needed to be done. That would have been a lot less painful and difficult for Him.
In regards to the selling of the gospel to the first century world, I don't think using the same characteristics as the brutal Roman tyrants gods would be a draw to those living under its regime. It would seem to me the only two reasons for putting it in would be to link back to the original prophesy and/or because it's true.
In fact, could it be possible the other virgin birth stories were adopted from the Jewish story? Israel was once a powerhouse in the near east, with a queen coming from far off to learn their story and traditions. That said I confess I don't know much about the other belief systems that claimed a virgin birth so it might not work. Just a thought.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Hey Wade. You posed the question, why not believe in the Virgin Birth? I can already imagine how Jordan would respond to that so let me just say - based on that logic alone a case could be made for believing in anything. For insance, why not believe that Jesus really meant for us to literally sell everything we have and give it to the poor? Very few modern Christians would ever believe Jesus actually expected us to do that. Wayyy to inconvenient and not very practical. As Christians we make choices everyday to neglect seemingly obvious truths in scripture due to their irrelevance or metaphorical meanings. (see OT, Paul's words on Marriage and Women and Revelation). Just because something is in the bible doesn't make it literally true. The reality is, they are many forms of truth besides factual truth.
The sellers of the gospel didn't adopt tyrant characteristics, only their sales pitch. The brilliance of it was they made them eat their own words. The Triumphal Entry is a great example of this. While the victorius Caesar trotted into Rome on his noble steed having just proved himself in battle, Jesus trotted in on a lowly donkey having just proved himself by loving Rome's conquered. Two Kingdoms, Two Lords. Brilliant Story telling.
I don't see why Jesus had to be born of a Virgin in order to show us how to remove the sin from our life. His life example is more than enough. Isn't it possible that Jesus was born human, son of Mary and Joseph, but attained the title Son of God by learning how to conquer sin and allow God incarnate in him? Isn't that the gospel message for all of us? God incarnate in us.
A couple of thoughts: if we claim that Matthew and Luke (and probably Peter)knew that the virgin birth did not occur and wrote in detail how it did occur that is an attempto deceive - which is by definition a lie. And as I said this flows counter to their commitment to the holiness of their Lord.
Your contention that Paul's failure to mention the virgin birth logically requires that either it was not important or it didn't happen - is , I'm afraid, not logical. There is nothing in the logic that requires only these two possibilities. There could be others - including the one suggested in my previous post.
Hey Dad. Once again, you assume the only kind of truth is factual/historical. I believe Matthew and Luke wrote the truth behind the Virgin Birth thus getting across the message they desired. Jesus is the new King, Lord.
As far as Paul goes, if logic does not include these two possibilities then Paul Christological purpose was different then we think. If Paul was trying to demonstrate Jesus was God incarnate, Lord of all, why on earth would he not mention the miraculous Virgin birth, it would definitely help his cause.
What about one of the following two possibilities:
1) The Virgin Birth "meme" (VBM) came into existence after Paul but before Matthew/Luke, or
2) The VBM was already in full force when Paul hit the scene, so there was no need for him to mention it.
i.e., We don't have to choose between falsehood and metaphor.
To be honest, it seems kind of unlikely to me that the Gospel writers would weave an unqualified myth into what seems to be intended as an historical narrative.
Hey Jord. haha, thanks for continuing to play ball. Really good questions and I think either possibility is worth considering. I will say though that #2 seems far fetched as Paul mentioned virtually everything else so why leave out The Virgin Birth?
Your statement brought up a question for me and perhaps others.
Was Matt/Luke intended as historical narrative, mythical story or both? If its both, the challenge is separating history from myth (truth in story form).
"Was Matt/Luke intended as historical narrative, mythical story or both? If its both, the challenge is separating history from myth (truth in story form)."
Then the question becomes, Why are the Gospel writers creating this ambiguity when the stakes are so high? Shouldn't they be favoring substance and clarity over style? Why use metaphor at all when it's going to cause so much confusion and uncertainty?
I agree with Jordan. Furthermore I will add that in tslking about "different kinds of truth" you are redefining the word truth. Either Mary's egg was, in fact, fertilized by the Holy Spirit of God or it was not. Only one of these can be truth. And if the gospel writers knew it was not true, then representing a detailed account of such a false event as if it did happen, it is a lie - whatever their motivation or intention. Trying to "represent the truth behind the story that Jesus is King" with an invented, untrue event would, I believe be mpst reprehensible to this King who once sadi thet He was the truth ...
By the way, Merry Christmas everyone - whenever he was born - of a virgin,
Thanks for the discussian everyone. Have a great Christmas!
These questions may help:
1. Is there more than one account of the virgin birth in the NT writings?
2. Does the writer of Matthew and Luke intend that the reader should believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?
3. Are there historical connections, names, places, events connected to the story?
4. Is there any messianic prophecy of a virgin birth?
5. Is the idea of a virgin birth important to believing any other core belief of Christianity, e.g. the deity of Christ?
6. Are the details in Matthew and Luke's record of the virgin birth, consistent or contradictory?
Hey Dan. Good questions. Here are my quick answers.
1. Yes. Matt and Luke.
2. There is no way to determine the intentions of a 2000 yr old author. If this was a court case that arguement would be over-ruled.
Speculation is all we got.
3. It seems the towns existed, the main characters existed, no historical evidence has been found that Rome called a census that year.
4. There are verses in the OT that speak of Israel's messiah being born of a virgin but nothing indicates his name would be Jesus and nothing indicated they believed this would be a literal event.
5. For me, it holds no significance beyond the emphasis that Jesus was special and worth listening to. He also represented the antidote to Caesar' Rome, a new kind of leader for a new world and a new way. The Deity of Christ is a discussian in itself.
6. They are definitely not the same. The Geneology holds the key to the author's purpose I think. In Matt, its obvious his purpose is to show the Jews that Jesus is a new Moses, with a new law - hence the Herod killing all the 2 yr old boys story.
The problem with interpreting the bible literally is we are forced to speculate and draw conclusions from there. I believe the stories are more powerful when we stop focusing on if they happened "just like that" and start focusing on "what do they mean?"
John, Sounds like you are doing some deep thinking and that's very important.
1. Is there more than one account of the virgin birth in the NT writings? The fact there are two accounts lends credibility to historicity by corroboration.
2. Does the writer of Matthew and Luke intend that the reader should believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? Yes, because Luke says in 1:1,2, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were EYEWITNESSES and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an ORDERLY ACCOUNT for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taught."
3. Are there historical connections, names, places, events connected to the story? Yes. Micah 5:2 refers to Bethlehem as the place of birth of one whose origins are from ancient times. Augustus is known to have taken a census at least three times and Luke says it was when Quirinius was governor of Syria as cofimred by Josephus. (Source- http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:M7ohcDG6E2AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius+evidence+of+census+taxation+Augustus&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca)
4. Is there any messianic prophecy of a virgin birth? Yes. Isaiah 7:14is quoted by Matthew 1:23. Micah quoted above refers to the place of birth.
5. Is the idea of a virgin birth important to believing any other core belief of Christianity, e.g. the deity of Christ? The virgin birth is tied directly to the deity of Christ: Luke 1:34-36 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."
6. Are the details in Matthew and Luke's record of the virgin birth, consistent or contradictory? They are consistent except for Luke's omission of the flight into Egypt, which actually lends credibility by showing that Luke did not simply copy Matthew's account that omits the presentation in the temple after 8 days mentioned by Luke.
If the events did not occur, not only is their meaning diminished, but so also is the credibility of all of the record of Jesus life and therefore the meaning of these nonexistent events.
2 Peter insists in 1:16-21 "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Hey Dan. I think the biggest area in which we differ is how we both use and interpret scripture. I don't think a biblical truth can be necessarily proved using the bible. It creates circular reasoning that never goes anywhere. Even Jesus said a person's testimony about himself isn't valid. The analogy for me is other sources are needed in order to validate biblical truth.
That being said, I believe the importance of the virgin birth in the overall scheme of themes is extremely small. For instance I see little connection between the true nature of Jesus and the virgin birth.
One thing I have found interesting in this discussian is nobody has attempted to answer the second question I posed "How has the belief in the virgin birth changed your life?" If it's not a life changing truth, why waste our time investing in it?"
The virgin birth affects my life immensely because if the biblical account is not credible, how can any biblical account be credible, e.g. the miracles of Christ, his deity, and his resurrection? Then my life would be without hope. As it is, I have tremendous hope.
So as you imply, the question of the virgin birth is really a question of the credibility and reliability of the scripture and their claims and origin.
If the detailed messianic prophecies can be proven to pre-date their fulfillment as recorded by credible eyewitnesses, then we have a degree of objectivity that goes beyond blind faith. Using the historical method, one can test the gospel accounts and the book of Acts for historical accuracy and reliability. These things lend to the credibility of the virgin birth as well as the other claims of miraculous occurrence supporting the identity of Christ.
I realize Christmas is past for another year and since I'm late in responding to this, maybe none of you will read it. But... I thought I would comment anyway.
I think I would find it harder to believe (the virgin birth, or any other story in the gospels) if the four gospels all retold everything exactly the same. As humans we know that we can all witness the exact same event and we go away from it and we tell a different part of that event to other people... because we're different! Our life experiences cause us to react to different parts of the same event. Our occupations cause us to react differently. Our personalities will be exposed through our retelling of a story. How boring life would be if this were not true. True??
Post a Comment