Re: "Virgin Birth" (to David)

Helen Willis (hhiwater@mail.bright.net)
Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:17:21 -0800

David-
I don't know what "virgin birth" meant exactly to the Hebrews - maybe Yoel
or someone else reading can clarify it for us.

yoel- The concept doesn't exist. What's the purpose for it? I think that
orthodox Jews have a much more healthy attitude towards sex than most
Christians I have met. (Still screwed up, though- in my humble opinion.)
What is the purpose of a virgin birth? God created sex! There is nothing
"evil" about sex (as long as it's performed within God's perimeters)! The
entire Song of Songs is based on sex! What is it in the act of sex which is
so detrimental to human character and developement and would make it
necessary for the messiah to be concieved in chastity?

(COURT 3/12) Hello Yoel: I don't think there is any indication from any on
this listing, or from the gospel accounts, that sex is an evil thing
(although the "use" of sex can be evil in some instances). Your question is
a very good one, but I would rephrase it as such: why is it necessary to
have Jesus born to a virgin? For that, I don't have an answer, but it
certainly doesn't argue whether Jesus actually WAS born to a virgin.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the question of "why" something
is doesn't help us to identify whether it "is" or not.

Helen:
I'm going to jump in on this one. Paul makes sex a bad thing. The early
Christians hermits made sex a bad thing. The Catholic and Orthodox Chruches
made sex a bad thing with their vows of celebacy and their nuns.
The Jewish law teaches go forth and multiply which, in general, caused the
Jews to see sex in the right place as a commandment. I been told by Jewish
girl friends that the rabbis teach that sex between a husband and wife is a
commandment and a blessing and to do it on Sabbath is a double blessing. That
this doesn't sound anything like Paul, or the early Christians, has always
been a difficulty for Christians, especially since the early Christian
attitude sound so much like the Greek (Platonic, I think) thoughts on the
matter and Paul seems to have been very comfortable writing in Greek and
never uses Hebrew sources for scripture references.
You see, David, on top of much of the NT being very much more like pagan
myths than Jewish ones there is the problem that Paul give no indication of
every having read the Jewish bible in Hebrew or even of knowing Hebrew. This
is hard to believe for a man who claims to be a student of Gamaliel, the head
of the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:3). You think Paul would have had to learn how to
read and write Hebrew to study the law and would have quoted from the Hebrew
version of the Bible, not from the Septuagint. He, at least, should of had
some idea that the Septuagint reads differently from the Hebrew text.
And, now, we have apparently have him expressing pagan attitudes on sex. An
attitude the gospels with their virgin birth story and Jesus not marrying
would seem to agree with him on. Hum. Gospels that have the supposedly Jewish
Jesus cursing the Jews. Hum. Gospels, three of which don't know the Jewish
day begins at sunset. Hum. Gospels that identify the high priest as the
leader of the Sanhedrin. Hum. Gospels, three of which have various Jewish
officials (the high priest, the Sanhedrin, and the king) doing all kinds of
stuff from arresting Jesus and having trials to being involved in crucifying
him either the night of the first passover seder, apparently leaving their
own celebration to do this, or the next day. Hum.
David, I said this before the NT reads like a Greek mystery religion
invented by Greeks and followed by Greeks and given by Greeks what Greeks
thought was Jewish gloss to make more exotic. (Maybe with a root of some
small Jewish sect founded by a rabbi, who may or may not have made a
massianic claim in the Jewish sense of the term) Where do you find any
compelling evidence for any large scale genuine Jewish involvement in the
founding of this religion?
Sorry for ranting so long,
Helen Willis
hhiwater@bright.net