tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4913929764969623125..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Parsing the virgin birthRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43742497093658030032013-11-05T19:25:48.210-05:002013-11-05T19:25:48.210-05:00One problem with that objection is that, to my kno...<i>One problem with that objection is that, to my knowledge, it's got the relationship exactly backwards. In my reading, the usual claim is that ancient people didn't think the mother made any positive contribution to procreation. They thought the father made the positive contribution.</i><br /><br />Interestingly, only in Gen. 3:15 does the OT talk about "the seed of the woman." Everywhere else it talks about the "seed" of men. If Matthew and Luke invented the virginal conception of Christ or borrowed the idea from pagan myths, then it would have been useful for them to have allude to or directly quoted Gen. 3:15. They could have cited/alluded to it after having searched the OT to find something to support it in prophecy. But they didn't. It would also have made sense that they would have also alluded/quoted it if it was the <b>basis</b> on which they invented the virginal conception. But, again they didn't. That's consistent with their not having invented it, but reporting history as they received it. Matthew only quoted Isa. 7:14. Gen. 3:15 talk about the "seed" of Eve or the woman must be prophetic and miraculous in that goes contrary to all cultural and scientific expectation of the day.<br /><br />Moreover, seeing the importance of lineage in Jewish culture, it's surprising that they were willing to even record the virginal conception of Christ (especially Matthew which was written partly to convince Jews of Christ's messiahship). It's almost an embarrassing fact since part of the reason why Jews were so zealous to keep genealogical records was to be able to verify the possible legitimacy of Messianic claimants. The New Testament's DOUBLE affirmation of the virginal conception of the Messiah is like shooting themselves in the foot since lineage was primarily recorded through the males (especially regarding the line of the messiah). Reading Matthew's reference to 4 female women in the line of David seems to be a way for Matthew to kind of anticipate Jewish objections since Jew's would naturally claim that Jesus wasn't really virginally conceived but was the product of either fornication or adultery between Mary and some other man or Joseph. <br /><br />Notice too that each woman was tainted by sexual sin. <br />1. Tamar pretended to be a prostitute in order to conceive a child (ending up in twins) by Judah her father-in-law because Judah wickedly refused to given her his next son Shelah in marriage after both Er and Onan died.<br />2. Rahab was a former prostitute.<br />3. Ruth was a Moabitess, the race being the product of incest between Lot and his eldest daughter.<br />4. "the wife of Uriah" (i.e. Bathsheba) committed adultery with David.<br /><br />It's as if Matthew was saying, "You may (wrongly) accuse Jesus to be the product of sexual immorality, but look at the ancestors of your own acknowledge rightful King, David. He had sinful women in his lineage."<br /><br />Also, Gal. 4:4 statement that the messiah was "made/born of a woman" seems like an unnecessary statement. Of course the Messiah was to be born of a woman. So, it suggests that Paul had in mind something special about Jesus' birth (i.e. He was virginally conceived).<br /><br />Finally, the Gospel of John seems to be saying that some of the Jews were implying that Jesus was a bastard child in John 8:41. Such rumors and accusations would naturally happen if there were claims that Jesus' conception and birth were not normal and according to approved cultural/legal norms.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79887932603164021362013-11-05T07:36:39.258-05:002013-11-05T07:36:39.258-05:00a) There's biblical precedent. God didn't ...a) There's biblical precedent. God didn't create Adam and Eve entirely from scratch. In the case of Adam, he made use of preexisting inorganic material–and in the case of Eve, preexisting organic material. <br /><br />Thanks for that precedent, Steve.<br /><br />It causes me to consider that God made Adam from dust and His breath<br />And graciously formed the second Adam from Eves dust and the breadth of His Spirit.Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.com