[net.religion] Virgin Birth per duke!nlt

gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) (04/22/85)

In reply to Eliyahu Teitz's question regarding the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ:

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is claimed by a long-standing tradition
common to Catholicism, Protestantism and Ortodoxy; it is currently
disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?)
who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible
written word of God, the Bible.

Matt 1:18 (NAS) :
	Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
	Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together
	she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Also, see Luke 1:26-38 (especially verse 35).

brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/25/85)

In article <1005@vax135.UUCP> gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) writes:
>it is currently
>disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?)
>who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible
>written word of God, the Bible.
>
>Matt 1:18 (NAS) :
>	Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
>	Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together
>	she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

I don't see the word "virgin" in that passage anywhere.
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/26/85)

> In article <1005@vax135.UUCP> gks@vax135.UUCP (Ken Swanson) writes:
> >it is currently
> >disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?)
> >who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible
> >written word of God, the Bible.
> >
> >Matt 1:18 (NAS) :
> >	Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother
> >	Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together
> >	she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I don't see the word "virgin" in that passage anywhere.

> Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems

Your point?  Do you therefore think that there is no scriptural
basis for belief in the virgin birth, or are you asking for
more information?  If the former, that's only one verse.  Two
sentences from a rather lengthy work.  If the latter, I apologize
for my hastiness, and offer the following:

In the first place, what do you suppose, "before they came together"
means?  Or the statement that she was "with child by the Holy
Spirit"?  (Usually, a pregnant woman is with child by a man.)

In the second place, read a few more verses.  Same book, same chapter,
verse 22-25 (NIV):
	All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said
	through the prophet: [23]"The virgin will be with child
	and will give birth to a son, and they will call him
	Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."
	[24]When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord
	had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.  [25]But
	he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
	And he gave him the name Jesus.

The quote in v23 is Isaiah 7:14.  Some argue that the word translated
"virgin" in Isaiah (almah) doesn't necessarily mean "virgin," but
would better be translated "young woman" (as in RSV).  However,
Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I
have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity
of the Hebrew "almah."  Quibbles about translation aside, Matthew
goes on to state that "he [Joseph] had no union with her until
she gave birth to a son."  Which, just as the earlier, "before
they came together," supports the doctrine of the virgin birth.
(And, incidentally, seems to do away with the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary.  If I say, "I didn't do X until Y,"
that implies that I *did* do X after Y.)

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/02/85)

In article <817@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:

>In the first place, what do you suppose, "before they came together"
>means?  Or the statement that she was "with child by the Holy
>Spirit"?  (Usually, a pregnant woman is with child by a man.)

This still doesn't say Mary was a *virgin*.  She could have lost her
virginity before meeting Joseph.

>	...will give birth to a son, and they will call him
>	Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."...
>	...And he gave him the name Jesus.
>
>Gary Samuelson

So why didn't they name him Immanuel, like the prophecy said?  Is this
an oversite?

Merlyn Leroy
"...a dimension between shallow and substance, between science and
superficial, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"

berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (05/07/85)

> Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I
> have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity
> of the Hebrew "almah."  

There is no ambiguity, it very clearly doesn't mean virgin. 
Also, the verse is more properly translated:
...and behold the girl *is* pregnant and *is* birthing a son,
and she will call him 'immunuel.[Yeshaiah 7:14]
The prophet later says (v. 17) "Ephraim will remove from upon 
Yehudah (or Judea, read either way) the king of Ashur." Jesus
lived well after the Ashur Empire, he was facing the Romans. 
Also, note it says that a member of the tribe of Ephraim, not
Yehudah (Judah) will be doing this.
And while we are under the subject of tribes... The king of
Yisrael (Israel) is supposed to be from the tribe of Judah
(Yehudah), a claim the begining of Matthew supports (1:1-6).
After tracing his geniology to King Dovid (David) through
Joseph, it then says that he was not a decendent of Joseph,
but of Gd (sorry I can not quote, I don't own an NT). A
decendant of Gd would have no male line to any of the tribes,
nevr mind Yehudah. How can Jesus claim to be of the House of
David?
-- 
Micha Berger
2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406  NY, NY 10033     (212) 781-0756
{philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger