Virgin Birth questioned: the implications

Timotheist · 05-30-2015, 08:01 AM

The Implications: Part I

Now that the initial shock has somewhat abated, I will initiate a series of posts that will show you the effects this discovery has had on my reading of the gospels. I will say up front that these posts will approach the topic more from a subjective standpoint, admittedly relying on my own personal logic (the smell test). I will back up the logic with citations where it makes sense to, but the 'research' thread is more appropriate for that.

The Baptism

I am not going to rehash the research on this subject on this thread. I want to now focus on the implications of the natural birth narrative as opposed to that of virgin birth.

Natural birth – The baptism of Jesus is a critical part of the narrative. The Spirit descending upon Jesus brought the Logos to him.

Virgin birth – The baptism of Jesus is less significant. Jesus was already God. The incident served primarily to kick-off Jesus’ ministry, and to introduce/support the practice of baptism for the rest of us.

The author of Matthew was obviously aware of his conundrum, and attempted to fix things in this way:

But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"
But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.

This is a weak argument on the author's part, lessening the significance of the event.

John’s author makes an unequivocal statement that the Baptist did not know who Jesus was before the baptism. This is a direct contradiction that cannot be explained with “harmony” arguments.

Luke addresses the conundrum in a completely different fashion.

Matthew and Luke were aware that the Baptist’s purpose was to introduce the Christ, so they were forced to push back the John-Jesus relationship to an earlier point in time. Matthew takes their relationship back to an undefined point in time. Luke goes all the way back, as back as you can go.

In comparing these passages, I find the John/Mark narrative to better pass the subjective “smell test” on this topic.

05-30-2015, 08:01 AM	#12
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	Re: Virgin Birth questioned: the implications The Implications: Part I Now that the initial shock has somewhat abated, I will initiate a series of posts that will show you the effects this discovery has had on my reading of the gospels. I will say up front that these posts will approach the topic more from a subjective standpoint, admittedly relying on my own personal logic (the smell test). I will back up the logic with citations where it makes sense to, but the 'research' thread is more appropriate for that. The Baptism I am not going to rehash the research on this subject on this thread. I want to now focus on the implications of the natural birth narrative as opposed to that of virgin birth. Natural birth – The baptism of Jesus is a critical part of the narrative. The Spirit descending upon Jesus brought the Logos to him. Virgin birth – The baptism of Jesus is less significant. Jesus was already God. The incident served primarily to kick-off Jesus’ ministry, and to introduce/support the practice of baptism for the rest of us. The author of Matthew was obviously aware of his conundrum, and attempted to fix things in this way: But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him. This is a weak argument on the author's part, lessening the significance of the event. John’s author makes an unequivocal statement that the Baptist did not know who Jesus was before the baptism. This is a direct contradiction that cannot be explained with “harmony” arguments. Luke addresses the conundrum in a completely different fashion. Matthew and Luke were aware that the Baptist’s purpose was to introduce the Christ, so they were forced to push back the John-Jesus relationship to an earlier point in time. Matthew takes their relationship back to an undefined point in time. Luke goes all the way back, as back as you can go. In comparing these passages, I find the John/Mark narrative to better pass the subjective “smell test” on this topic.