Re: Virginal conception (was Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism)

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Sat Jun 27 2009 - 20:53:07 EDT

Those who believe that Mary is "ever virgin" think that Jesus had no full
siblings. Thus his brothers & sisters mentioned in, e.g., Mk.6:3 would have
been cousins or children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. A positive
argument sometimes given for this view is that Jesus would not have given
his mother into the care of the Beloved Disciple in Jn.19:26-27 if she had
had other sons. This is a plausible argument - if those verses are simply
history & not a symbolic statement about the relationship of the church to
Jesus' true disciples.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Merv Bitikofer" <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Virginal conception (was Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New
Atheism)

> George Murphy wrote:
>> The technical meaning of "virgin birth" (/virginitas in partu/) is not
>> just that Mary had not had sexual intercourse when Jesus was born (as
>> Mt.1:25 says) but that she retained her physical virginity (/virgo
>> intacta/) - i.e., the hymen was not broken even in the process of giving
>> birth. Comparison is sometimes made with Jesus appearing in a locked
>> room on Easter evening in Jn.20.
>> My own view is that not only is there no biblical basis for this idea
>> but that its theological implications are entirely negative since it
>> detracts from the belief that in the Incarnation Jesus shared fully in
>> the human condition - & that in spite of the fact that Luther seems to
>> have accepted it. (On reflection though I think I was wrong about Calvin
>> & Wesley on that, & that what they accepted, as Luther certainly did, was
>> yet another idea, that of the perpetual virginity of Mary - i.e., after
>> Jesus' birth.)
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>> <http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
> Regarding your ending parenthetical comment: Do you mean that some hold
> that Mary's later children, Jesus' brothers, also had virgin births?! Or
> did you just mean that they held she was a virgin up through the the
> entire birth process of Jesus himself?
>
> What strikes me in all this is how there seems to be no such thing as an
> unimportant detail. I think this has been elevated into a kind of litmus
> test so that doctrine police can differentiate out those who don't take
> every jot and tittle literally in the properly acceptable ways. If one
> accepts that Christ was raised from the dead, I for one, won't worry too
> much that they might have too small a view of God or that God hasn't done
> miracles. The question is whether He *did* do this one (not *can He* do
> it); perhaps we have a misunderstanding in what we glean from Scriptures.
> Humility ought to prod us to not get too bent out of shape either way on
> this one if it is a stumbling block for someone.
>
> --Merv
>
>
> --Merv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 27 20:54:42 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 27 2009 - 20:54:42 EDT