Problems with the Virgin Birth Story
Ray and Sandy Briggs brite1@inetworld.net
Tue, 09 Feb 1999 22:11:52 -0800 (00918648712, 199902100611.WAA07418@inet1.inetworld.net)
----------
>From: JAlw@aol.com
>To: errancy@infidels.org
>Subject: Re: Problems with the Virgin Birth Story
>Date: Tue, Feb 9, 1999, 9:37 PM
>
>Joe Alward:
> ><< >
> > >Paul said that any man who preached some other gospel would be accursed.
>Is it unreasonable to suppose that Paul meant, "If any man *contradicts* my
>gospel, he's accursed"? The virgin-birth story told by Matthew and Luke is
>not in conflict with Paul's gospel, is it?
> >
> > Ray:
> > There is no such thing as certainty Joe. I think the preponderance of
> > evidence CREA presents shows that Paul did think he preached the full
> > gospel and any new additions should be shunned. >>
> >===============
> >Joe Alward:
> >
> >I'm not speaking of "certainty"; I asked if you thought it would be
> >"unreasonable" for a believer to suggest that Paul meant that the ones who
> >would be accursed would be those who *contradicted* his story--not those who
> >merely had additional parts of the Jesus story to tell. What do you think?
> >Would such bibliolators be unreasonable in holding this view?
> >
> >Now, there's a lot that can be said about Paul's failure to mention the
>virgin
> >birth--but we're not talking about those things here. The only thing I
>wished
> >to address is the value of Paul's "accursed" verses. My view is that they
>can
> >not be used to make a strong case against the virgin birth. I think a
>strong
> >case can be made that Paul knew nothing about the virgin birth, but it can
>be
> >done without using the comparatively weak argument that Crea is advancing.
>
>
> CREA
> I don't recall advancing any arguments in this matter, merely adducing
> data which would allow for a fair evaluation of the material (and at your
> behest, at that). It appears obvious that you didn't bother to take a look
> at the other references I cited, so I'll save you the effort. Second
> Corinthians 11:1-4 reads as follows (again, KJV):
>
>
> [2Cor. 11:1] "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly:
> and indeed bear with me.
>
> [2Cor. 11:2] "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I
> have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you
> as a chaste virgin to Christ.
>
> [2Cor. 11:3] "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled
> Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted
> from the simplicity that is in Christ.
>
> [2Cor. 11:4] "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we
> have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit,
> which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye
> have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
>
>
> CREA
> Notice the references to jealousy, and the status of the church as a
> "chaste virgin". Tell me, Joe, if you had brokered a marriage contract and
> promised a virgin bride, only to later discover that she had done EVERYTHING
> (mutual masturbation, oral, anal, intercrural and intermammarial sex, etc.)
> except for vaginal intercourse, would you be willing to claim that there was
> REALLY no harm done and that you had faithfully carried out your part of the
> deal?
>
>=====================
>Joe Alward:
>
>Ray, what is Crea talking about, and does it have anything to do with my
>suggestion that Paul wasn't necessarily saying that those who gave additional
>information about Jesus were accursed?
Ray:
I think the argument is that Paul is warning them to reject anything new
regarding the gospel. If you like anything new is contradictory. If the
virgin birth were a part of the gospel, Paul would have told them about it.
If it is taught new 30 years later, reject it.
It would look to us now that much could be said about Jesus that Paul didn't
know or teach. After all, the gospels weren't yet written. But remember that
Paul didn't think the world was going to be around when the gospels were
written. He thought the end was immanent. Paul seems to be saying there need
not be any gospels. He had gotten it directly from God and what more was
needed? Someone could copy his stuff or even perhaps elaborate it but adding
a new teaching would be anathema.
In the Jesus puzzle it is argued that Paul didn't believe that a real man
named Jesus had just lived in Judea and was known by the apostles. If he
had, it would have been incredibly presumptuous to have taken the position
he took. Does Paul ever say that Peter was taught anything by Jesus? In 1
Cor 15 he says Peter saw the risen Christ but that isn't the same thing as
saying he walked with him for at least a year. Paul says essentially nothing
about Jesus, so the little he does say could be later interpolation. With
Paul Jesus is an etherial figure and not the Jesus we read about in the
gospels. I suspect Paul would have burned the gospels if he had ever seen
them.
I think I might have raised more questions that answered any.
Regards, Ray
>