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
#yiv2667023644 -- filtered {}#yiv2667023644 filtered {}#yiv2667023644 filtered
{}#yiv2667023644 p.yiv2667023644MsoNormal, #yiv2667023644
li.yiv2667023644MsoNormal, #yiv2667023644 div.yiv2667023644MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2667023644
a:link, #yiv2667023644 span.yiv2667023644MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2667023644 a:visited, #yiv2667023644
span.yiv2667023644MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2667023644 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv2667023644
span.yiv2667023644EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;}#yiv2667023644
filtered {}#yiv2667023644 div.yiv2667023644Section1 {}#yiv2667023644 I assume
the references to Jesus beingJoseph’s son are John 1:45 and 6:42? Both are used
by individuals as a means toidentify Jesus, surely, rather than by the gospel
writer to make any kind oftheological 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'snativity and beyond Yes Martin, poetry
certainly provides adifferent way of using language, but that does not imply
that it can change themeaning of that which its language is describing. And
when John's Gospel says twice thatJesus was the son of Joseph, we cannot say
that its author believed in thevirgin birth, can we? Wishes, Raymond.
-----OriginalMessage-----
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 adifferent
way of using language, Raymond. I can't see anything in what John haswritten
that is at odds with John's (or any other) gospel. All good wishes, Martin
Rev. MartinWilliams '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'snativity and beyond It might be a good poem,
but it's notwhat I believe and it's not what John's Gospel tells us. John
clearlysays that Jesus was the son of Joseph (John 1.45 and 6.42). There's much
inJohn about resurrection, but I haven't found anything in that gospel
aboutatonement. The emphasis is on the way from death to life and
theglorification of Jesus. RaymondGarfoot.
-----OriginalMessage-----
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 14December 2020 at 11:56 "W. John Young"<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello all Here's a few lines I put together inreflecting on John's gospel for
a Bible study and where the nativity isexpressed 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 onearth, 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 |
