The Christmas Narrative.

[Elijah John]

The Christmas Narrative, otherwise known as the "Virgin Birth story" is absent from the earliest (and presumably most reliable) Gospel Mark. No mention of it at all. It is only when we get to subsequent Gospels, Matthew and Luke, that we get the Christmas narrative. And John goes a step further, claiming that Jesus has always existed, making the Virgin Birth narrative obsolete.

-For debate,

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

[marco]

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?


It suggests the writers were lying or, at best, taking rumours and embellishing them for effect. Presumably the aim was to make Jesus a god.

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aid of a human Father?

I can't see any connection.


3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

The earliest gospel, per se, might not be golden truth but we can take it that later addenda are just the fruits of rumour and imagination. Of course we will hear that we cannot argue from silence - other writers may have felt baby Jesus too small to bother about. I suspect that in the area of the nativity the cynic is most likely to get things right.

[brianbbs67]

I will go with 1 yes, 2 no, and 3 doesn't matter as Christmas is not a holy day. Its amazing how many people don't know that holiday is holy day.

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?

Given that the synoptic gospels were all written mid-first century with John's gospel coming no later than 90 A.D., it's unreasonable to call them legends. There would have been so many eye witnesses to Jesus' life that the authors would have been able to get the facts about who Jesus was, what he said and did, how he died, his arrest, the trials, the resurrection, etc. from many sources as most of them would still have been alive at the time the gospels were written and circulated. See Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

Elijah John wrote:

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

Yes, it's integral. God required blood sacrifices in the Old Testament as atonement for sin. However, those sacrifices did not take away a person's sins. They only covered them temporarily.

In order to take away the sins of humankind forever, a man would have to die in the place of all of us. But just as those sacrifices in the O.T. days had to be unblemished, that is, flawless, so, too, would the sacrifice of any human being. That means the man would have to be sin-free. However, we are all born with sin natures. Therefore, none of us could atone for the sins of humankind.

Jesus was a sinless man, the only one who ever walked the earth, because he was not just man, he was also God. That's what made him sin-free. That's why he and he alone can atone for our sins.

Being born of a woman, Jesus was fully man, but being eternally divine, he was fully God.

Elijah John wrote:

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

Bear in mind the audience for the gospels and the purpose behind each one. Matthew included the genealogies because he was writing to a Jewish audience to show them that Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah.

Luke was a historian and wrote the most traditional of biographies (by our standards). Therefore, he included the events that led up to the birth of Christ.

The reason for two genealogies is here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

John wrote his book to explain who Christ was (God Incarnate, God the Son, God the Second Person of the Trinity), and to explain who believers are in Christ. He wasn't writing a strict biography as such.

Mark wrote for a Gentile audience. They would have no understanding of Jewish prophecies about Christ so there was no reason for him to include that information.

Mark's style is terse and to the point and was the first of the gospels to be written. Look at it like a current news item. He got the initial news out there, the way that a television news hour does on first hearing of an event. It is latter that the details get filled in with later reports that give more information. That's the function of the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.

Mark made it clear that Christ died to atone for the sins of humankind. The fact that he didn't mention Jesus's birth is immaterial. To argue that it suggests the account of Christ is legendary using it as evidence amounts to a fallacious argument from silence.

[Elijah John]

Elijah John wrote:

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

Yes, it's integral.

Jesus was a sinless man, the only one who ever walked the earth, because he was not just man, he was also God. That's what made him sin-free. That's why he and he alone can atone for our sins.


Elijah John wrote:

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

Mark made it clear that Christ died to atone for the sins of humankind. The fact that he didn't mention Jesus's birth is immaterial*. To argue that it suggests the account of Christ is legendary using it as evidence amounts to a fallacious argument from silence.

*(I bolded the two contrasting words for emphasis)

Which is it, "integral" or "immaterial"? That Christ was born of a Virgin in the plan of salvation. His "sinlessness", sinless perfection. You seem to be saying that Jesus miraculous birth was essential to his sinless purity. Also, a few considerations. Didn't Jesus inherit original sin from his mother Mary? Catholics have an answer for that, do you?

And if it was his God nature that made him sinless, where's the merit in that? Didn't that give him an unfair advantage in resisting temptation? Or maybe, just maybe Jesus wasn't "God" after all. That is a Church, not a Bible teaching. And maybe, just maybe Jesus wasn't sinless either. That would explain why he submitted himself to John's "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". And why he asked the seeker "why do you call me good?" Only Paul(?) and the author of Hebrews call Jesus "sinless". Does that author's speculation make it so?

And if Mark preached Jesus as sacrifice for sin, he seems to have omitted the "unblemished" part. Or was he relying on future Gospel Evangelists to fill in that "integral" blank?

[polonius]

Elijah John posted:

Which is it, "integral" or "immaterial"? That Christ was born of a Virgin in the plan of salvation. His "sinlessness", sinless perfection. You seem to be saying that Jesus miraculous birth was essential to his sinless purity. Also, a few considerations. Didn't Jesus inherit original sin from his mother Mary? Catholics have an answer for that, do you?

Response: Yes, there are two Catholic stories that are still taught by the Catholic faith. One is the 4th century Dogma of Original Sin and the other is the 7th century Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The Eastern Orthodox Catholics reject both of these.

[Elijah John]

Elijah John posted:

Which is it, "integral" or "immaterial"? That Christ was born of a Virgin in the plan of salvation. His "sinlessness", sinless perfection. You seem to be saying that Jesus miraculous birth was essential to his sinless purity. Also, a few considerations. Didn't Jesus inherit original sin from his mother Mary? Catholics have an answer for that, do you?

Response: Yes, there are two Catholic stories that are still taught by the Catholic faith. One is the 4th century Dogma of Original Sin and the other is the 7th century Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The Eastern Orthodox Catholics reject both of these.

I didn't know that about the EOC. That surprises me. I don't think Protestants have a good answer to that either.

The RCC has an answer at least, but it is just compounding the absurdity of the oringinal doctrine. Isn't the simpler, and more reasonable solution that "original sin" (inherited guilt) was a bogus dogma to begin with? And as such, needs no solution except to disregard it.

[Matthew S Islam]

Hello

The Christmas Narrative, otherwise known as the "Virgin Birth story" is absent from the earliest (and presumably most reliable) Gospel Mark. No mention of it at all. It is only when we get to subsequent Gospels, Matthew and Luke, that we get the Christmas narrative. And John goes a step further, claiming that Jesus has always existed, making the Virgin Birth narrative obsolete.

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?

Typically, the discrepancies between the Gospels demonstrate the author's theological bias and improvements of the narrative. The earlier Gospel presents a more fallible Jesus in comparison to its successor. This visible trend is sufficient in proving a clear level of dishonesty and excessive theology among factions of early Christians. Although it would be inaccurate to dismiss the "extreme Christologies" as later 1st century innovations due to the early presence of Paul. However, it would be equally inaccurate to assume that Paul's theology was the widely held standard of that era.

The bitter truth is that the religious and social settings were not conducive for the maintenance of God's religion. Not only are the these heresies and falsehoods apparent in the New Testament and early Christian history, but the religious successors followed a similar path as their gentile predecessors, whereby they formulated Trinitarian theology, and as a result have gone astray.


--

With regards to the virgin birth specifically, I don't think we can say for absolute certainty that it's a later theological development. The earliest sources do not explicitly refer to it, but neither do they completely contradict it.
Jesus' sermons didn't consist of him repeating his miraculous birth to his audiences. It is possible that this belief wasn't widespread amongst the early community/oral traditions. Just because something isn't mentioned in every source doesn't necessitate that it's falsehood, however, it certainly does make it speculative and uncertain to an extent.

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

This is somewhat of an interesting dilemma for myself. In Islam there is no room whatsoever for rejecting the virgin birth. Disbelieving in its truthfulness would be enough to negate one's proclamation of faith and render them a non-believer. This is because the texts are unambiguous and the scholars are unanimous concerning its affirmation.

As for the Christian's paradigm, I don't see how faith in a miraculous birth would be obligatory for attaining Christian salvation. If Paul is the theological successor of Christ, then how could belief in the virgin birth be necessary when Paul never references the event explicitly?

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

I see what you're saying and I think these are valid question to pose to a typical Christian. However, I don't think they'll find any problem admitting the theological deficiencies in any individual Gospel. The Bible is to be taken as a whole and understood collectively.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Christian scholars view the birth narrative as a necessary belief for salvation, as much as they see it as a theological justification for their beliefs. Hence, from this perspective, one can hold Mark's theology to be sufficient despite its "shortcomings".


---


I just wanted to share some thoughts on the implications of the virgin birth:

The virgin birth of Jesus doesn't imply that he is God or the literal Son of God.

1) Almighty God is a not a human-being. His "progeny" would naturally be expected to be of a similar nature to His Essence, and His "mate" wouldn't be a human.

2) Almighty God creates whatever He Wills--He doesn't have "mates" and "offsprings".

Had God actually begot a Son, then the Son would have to be classified as a God. However, we know from Scripture that polytheism and idolatry are prohibited, so God would never allow this to happen.

3) God's existence is eternal and sufficient (independent)

Therefore it is impossible for God to have offsprings in the first place because they would necessarily be temporal and contingent. To ascribe Divinity to an entity that lacks the qualities of eternality and independence is illogical and polytheism.

In conclusion, the deity of Christ is neither implied nor justified through the virgin birth. This scenario demands a metaphorical and contextualized interpretation.

If one is referring to Jesus' pre-existing eternally alongside the Father, then this is a different discussion which needs to be argued through its relevant texts -- not the virgin birth.

And God knows best.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by Matthew S]

You make many good points, Matthew. Just some observations. Since Islam does not allow for the possibility that Mohammed got it wrong in any detail of the Qur'an, then to question any said detail would be to question God. Presumably that would include the crucifixion as well. Which would go against the vast majority of non-Islamic scholarship. Even most atheist scholars believe that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

And it's a bit strange that fundamentalist Christians take the same attitude toward the Bible, because they hold that the Bible was not dictated, but still, they take the position that to question the Bible, is to question God. They too, do not allow for the possibility that a given Testament author got it wrong. This, even in the case of the virgin birth tale.

And I agree, even if it happened, the virgin birth would certainly not necessitate the divinity of Jesus, anymore than would the resurrection.

But fundamentalists point to both as evidence, and sometimes proof of Jesus' divinity.

[Matthew S Islam]

[Replying to post 17 by Matthew S]

You make many good points, Matthew. Just some observations. Since Islam does not allow for the possibility that Mohammed got it wrong in any detail of the Qur'an, then to question any said detail would be to question God. Presumably that would include the crucifixion as well. Which would go against the vast majority of non-Islamic scholarship. Even most atheist scholars believe that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

Well, a major distinction between Islam and Christianity is that Muslims claim to possess the exact Scripture that was rehearsed by the Prophet(pbuh) and his companions. In this space, there would be no reason for anyone who claims to believe in the Prophet to ever question the accuracy of his revelations--lest he question the faith itself. This doesn't mean that Islam is free from any exegetical ambiguity or scholarly disputes; however, the disputes are surrounding our understanding of the revelation, and not the source of revelation itself.

Regarding the Messiah, it is expected that all non-Muslim investigations would differ with us on this issue. We believe that God Divinely intervened and saved the Messiah by raising Jesus to Himself. God miraculously caused the event to 'appear' to have taken place as a means of punishing the Jews for their disbelief and failing to keep the covenants.
Without involving theology, history must always presume a natural explanation of past events or else there wouldn't be any way to determine anything. Surely, there aren't any people on this planet who believe that a crucified man 2000 years ago never died and is currently in heaven right now awaiting the Anti-Christ and the end times.

And it's a bit strange that fundamentalist Christians take the same attitude toward the Bible, because they hold that the Bible was not dictated, but still, they take the position that to question the Bible, is to question God. They too, do not allow for the possibility that a given Testament author got it wrong. This, even in the case of the virgin birth tale.

And I agree, even if it happened, the virgin birth would certainly not necessitate the divinity of Jesus, anymore than would the resurrection.

But fundamentalists point to both as evidence, and sometimes proof of Jesus' divinity.

I don't think it's strange. Naturally, every religious person wants to believe that their Scriptures are preserved and sanctioned by God. I mean, why would anyone sincerely follow a religion if they didn't believe this to be the case? Don't get me wrong I understand your sentiments, and had I been a Christian myself, I'd like to believe that my approach would've been meticulous; however, there's an internal conflict with regards to having faith in a religion whose religious texts are contentious. It is more common and easier for people to "just believe", than to "believe with scrutiny".

Also, don't you think it's relevant to assess whether or not being overly critical is even worth it in the paradigm of the 'believer'? For example, within this thread you questioned the necessity of the virgin birth. But perhaps the question could be: What is so problematic with believing in the virgin birth even if it was wrong? Do our positions on these subtle doctrines determine whether we go to heaven or hell? I'm asking from within the paradigm of the average "believer".

[marco]

Well, a major distinction between Islam and Christianity is that Muslims claim to possess the exact Scripture that was rehearsed by the Prophet(pbuh) and his companions.

Muhammad claimed he got his text from God. And people choose to believe this. The Islamic version of the Nativity takes place under a palm tree, so we have an Arab setting, with of course lots of fresh water. Muhammad was more persuasive than the Evangelists; he was an astute trader and a fine leader. He had learned lots about Judaism and Christianity, and made appropriate changes - Allah forbid that Allah should have a son is amusingly convincing. And of course, with Jesus demoted to one of many, Muhammad enjoys the status of being the final prophet. Paul would weep!

We believe that God Divinely intervened and saved the Messiah by raising Jesus to Himself. God miraculously caused the event to 'appear' to have taken place as a means of punishing the Jews for their disbelief and failing to keep the covenants.

It is amazing what people will accept. What a work of art is man! This divine joke against the Jews is political rather than religious. I suppose the secret is to feed peope what they want to hear. There is nothing to choose between the absurdities in Christianity and the absurdites in Islam. The correcting pen from the 7th century is too obvious.