Legal case for the virgin birth (so that ELF will see this)
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:56:38 -0500 (00918262598, 18553725750652@unifour.com)
On 5 Feb 99, at 11:23, Ed Tyler wrote:
> Ed
>
> That would be his Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 19, vv 1-3; it seems
> more anti-docetic than persuasive, though. That is, it's more about the
> nature of the virgin birth than arguing it as a historical fact.
>
> However, I'd have to disagree with Brian that it was believed "from the
> beginning" because there's no hint of such nonsense in Q or Mark. Also,
> John omits it entirely and certainly if John had known or believed such a
> legend he'd have included it, because his is the most mythic of the
> gospels.
Achilles
Crea was kind enough to provide three references from Ignatius on this
subject, which you should have also received by now.
Add to your list above Paul, and most (if not all) of the other Epistle
writers. Also, I must disagree with your assessment in the case of John. It
seems far more likely, IMHOP, that the writer of John was familiar with the
synoptics, and left out the virgin birth story (among other things) not
from ignorance but from a conscious rejection of them. It is a blatantly
pagan story, without OT precedence.
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
We can't go around shooting every round-shouldered man in
Iowa; it would cause talk.
-- The Old Man in The Puppet Masters