I think you are under-interpreting the language about the Holy Spirit
overshadowing Mary in Luke 1, and also what about John 1:13? The main argument
for the virgin birth, however, is why invent such a dodgy story if something
like that did not happen? As a cover-up for an illegitimate birth it isn’t a
very good one, and if Jesus’ birth was normal, why put that into question? Your
argument concerning Matthew 1: 23 does not work either. While Isaiah plainly
refers to a young girl rather than a version, Matthew unambiguously refers to a
virgin and adds that no intercourse between Mary and Joseph before the birth
for good measure.
Best Wishes
JOHN E STATON
Scarborough, North Yorkshire, UK
www.christianreflection.org.uk
Sent from my iPad
On 15 Dec 2020, at 15:16, dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
It is of course possible that Jesus was formally adopted as Joseph's son,
though I consider that highly unlikely. I don't know for sure whether he
would be called Joseph's son for identification purposes, but we have to
assume that Joseph was already dead by the time Jesus began his public
ministry, so I would think it unlikely that Jesus would still be identified
twice as the son of Joseph (in the texts that you mentioned, Ann).
But the fact is that John's Gospel does not mention the virgin birth as a
doctrine, so that when John says that Jesus was the son of Joseph he does not
qualify this in any way by saying that Jesus was born of a virgin, and he
does not even say that Jesus was the son of both Joseph and Mary. Some would
reply to me that John does not mention the birth of Jesus at all, so he would
not describe his birth as that from a virgin. I don't agree with this
argument, since a doctrine as revolutionary as that of the virgin birth ought
to have had more than a passing mention in any gospel. Given that John's
text assumes Jesus' paternity from Joseph, I see that there is no argument
for the virgin birth from John's Gospel.
It also has to be said that the earliest NT writings, the genuine epistles of
Paul, never refer to the virgin birth, even when Paul is recommending or
referring to chastity in 1 Corinthians 7 and 2 Corinthians 11.2. In 1
Corinthians 11 and 15 he mentions the traditions surrounding the Last Supper
and the Resurrection which he was taught soon after his conversion, but again
there is no reference to the virgin birth.
Only 1 text in Mark (Mark 6.3) could refer to the virgin birth, but the NRSV
margin reading 'son of the carpenter and of Mary' has early attestation in
the 3rd century Chester Beatty papyrus. Luke's references to the virgin
birth show evidence of editing (or tampering) in the annunciation narrative
and the genealogy, but Mary and Joseph are both called Jesus' parents 5 times
in Luke 2 and Jesus is Joseph's son in Luke 4.22. Matthew's use of Isaiah's
prophecy (Matthew 1.23 and Isaiah 7.14) is too ambiguous as a result of
translation difficulties to use as an argument for the virgin birth.
Irenaeus in 180 AD says the Ebionites did not believe in the virgin birth
(Against all Heresies 3.21 and 5.1) and Epiphanius in c 403 says that
Ebionite was at first a common name for all Christians (Adv. Haer. 29.1). It
is only in c 300 AD that Eusebius writes that some (but not all ) Ebionites
believed in the virgin birth.
So from where do you get the idea of the virgin birth? Classical paganism!
Thanks to the pagan Emperor Constantine who forced the whole church to
believe in the virgin birth in his Nicene Creed of 325 AD.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Bossingham <Ann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 23:15
Subject: [methmins] Re: John's nativity and beyond
I assume the references to Jesus being Joseph’s son are John 1:45 and 6:42?
Both are used by individuals as a means to identify Jesus, surely, rather
than by the gospel writer to make any kind of theological statement?
Regards,
Ann
From: methmins-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:methmins-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Redacted sender "raygarfoot" for DMARC
Sent: 14 December 2020 19:32
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [methmins] Re: John's nativity and beyond
Yes Martin, poetry certainly provides a different way of using language, but
that does not imply that it can change the meaning of that which its language
is describing.
And when John's Gospel says twice that Jesus was the son of Joseph, we cannot
say that its author believed in the virgin birth, can we?
Wishes,
Raymond.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Williams <sweccsuper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:29
Subject: [methmins] Re: John's nativity and beyond
Poetry provides a different way of using language, Raymond. I can't see
anything in what John has written that is at odds with John's (or any other)
gospel.
All good wishes,
Martin
Rev. Martin Williams
'Seashells'
4A Rampside
Barrow-in-Furness
LA13 0PY
Email - martin.williams@xxxxxxxxxx
Landline - 01229 877882
Mobile - 07484 816555 (NOT a smart phone)
From: methmins-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <methmins-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 14 December 2020 12:32
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [methmins] Re: John's nativity and beyond
It might be a good poem, but it's not what I believe and it's not what John's
Gospel tells us. John clearly says that Jesus was the son of Joseph (John
1.45 and 6.42). There's much in John about resurrection, but I haven't found
anything in that gospel about atonement. The emphasis is on the way from
death to life and the glorification of Jesus.
Raymond Garfoot.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Barnett <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: methmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:01
Subject: [methmins] Re: John's nativity and beyond
Beautiful and moving, John.
Thank you
John Barnett
On 14 December 2020 at 11:56 "W. John Young" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hello all
Here's a few lines I put together in reflecting on John's gospel for a Bible
study and where the nativity is expressed concisely in 1:14.
No broken waters that presage a birth,
Or of the mother’s pain, and blood, no sight;
Just that the Word took flesh and lived on earth,
Fullness of truthful grace, of life and light.
Yet at the cross, water and blood are seen,
Signs of the Lamb removing human sin
And living water from the Nazarene,
Received by faith, creating life within.
W John Young December 2020.
grace and peace
John Y
Virus-free. www.avg.com