British clergy have doubts about virgin birth

The Telegraph via SMH ^ | December 23 2002

[dead]

More than a quarter of Church of England clergy do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, a survey has found.

A poll of 500 clerics found that 27per cent privately reject the traditional story of Jesus's birth, which forms a key part of the Nativity.

The view of one Hampshire vicar was typical. "There was nothing special about his birth or his childhood - it was his adult life that was extraordinary," he said.

He declined to be named, saying: "I have a very traditional bishop and this is one of those topics I do not go public on. I need to keep the job I have got."

The survey, carried out for the London Daily Telegraph, will dismay traditionalists inside and outside the Church of England. Many of the sceptics who took part in the survey said the story of the virgin birth was a product of poor biblical translations and literary tradition rather than divine intervention.

The Rev Dr Keith Archer, of Salford, said: "It is not particularly important because it is a debatable translation of a Hebrew prophecy which first appeared in Isaiah."

Another vicar added: "Writers at the time used to stress a person's importance by making up stories about their early life. I think that is exactly what has happened here."

Most of those who doubt the virgin birth agreed they would be presiding over traditional Christmas services that stressed the miraculous nature of Christ's birth.

Dr Archer said: "We will be having a traditional service because that is what people expect and enjoy. There are times and places for this debate."

A colleague added: "I do not believe in the virgin birth but I would not argue for that point of view in a sermon because I simply don't believe it is that important an issue."

Traditionalists seized upon the survey's findings as evidence of a church in decline.

John Roberts, who heads the Lord's Day Observance Society, said: "If you take away the virgin birth you might as well take away the entire Christian message. The miracle of the Christian faith is that God came down to us. If you lose that miracle you lose the resurrection and everything else."

The survey did find some comfort for traditionalists: 64per cent of those arguing against the idea of a virgin birth still believed in some sort of resurrection of Christ, whether physical or otherwise.

[AppyPappy]

The "virgin birth" is actually an old pagan idea that was adopted by the Christians to fulfill prophecy.

Urban legend. There is no evidence that the writers "borrowed" the idea.

[AppyPappy]

Some even say he married and had children

Some say he went on to play shortstop for the Astros too.

[AppyPappy]

Jesus did not pass through Mary's vaginal canal at birth and consequently her hymen remained intact;

Hymen is not necessarily related to virginity. Jesus had brothers and sisters.

[Dog Gone]

If the part about the Three Kings of the Orient smoking rubber cigars is fiction, I'll be greatly disappointed.

[LPStar]

Jesus did not pass through Mary's vaginal canal at birth and consequently her hymen remained intact How do they think Jesus was born then? C-sections did not result in a live mother back then and if done, were usually done on a dead woman.

[Defiant]

You are correct on the point you are making. When I said born out of wedlock, I meant simply that he was not the son of his mother's husband. You are using the definition supplied by state law, which is that any child born to a married woman is born in wedlock, and is presumed to be the son of the husband. It matters not for this issue. It is most likely they were married at the time of the birth. The key point is, Joseph accepted it, which would have been highly unusual in that society unless there had been some reason for him to do so, which points to the type of divine intervention you referenced.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

I'm not defending the theses. I'm distinguishing them.
In the late middle ages there were clerics who insisted they had the (perfectly preserved) foreskin removed during the circumcision of Jesus.

Christian fascination with this sort of material has a long history.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"How do they think Jesus was born then?"

They think it was a miracle.

What did you expect?

[Protagoras]

Some say he went on to play shortstop for the Astros too.

I haven't seen that one, but the Mormons say he went to England I think.

[AppyPappy]

"He went to Paris
Played the piano
And married an actress named Kim".

[AnalogReigns]

Medieval fascinations & fetishes are not the topic of this post...but I see your point trying to paint Christians as banal.

The evidence that a virgin did conceive, and give birth to a man who did many miracles and eventually even raised Himself from the dead--so that all His original followers were willing (and often were) to be tortured to death proclaiming these facts, is there--if you open your eyes.

Millions of lives have been radically changed for the better by accepting these facts. I hope you will be one of them.

[aruanan]

The Rev Dr Keith Archer, of Salford, said: "It is not particularly important because it is a debatable translation of a Hebrew prophecy which first appeared in Isaiah."

You know, you'd think that something that was important to the first century writers of Matthew and Luke (and to Mary as quoted by Luke) would be important to 21st century people who claim to be Christian.

[aruanan]

Historically speaking, we will never know if the resurrection occurred or not. The best that can be said is that the early Church would not have grown as quickly as it did if Christ had not been resurrected.

Historically speaking, we have plenty of evidence that the resurrection occurred. I think your problem is that you don't know the definition of "historically speaking". But I see that in the rest of your post you are given to making unwarranted conclusions, so I guess it's not so surprising.

[aruanan]

There are a number of scholars who belive exactly as you have written. That Jesus did not die on the cross and was alive when he was taken down and 'left town'. Some even say he married and had children. And his wife... Mary Magdalin.

And lots of people have made their living writing fantasies, of which the above is but another having not the slightest historical corroboration.

[aruanan]

Three theses: (1) Mary did not have intercourse with any human being before giving birth to Jesus; (2) Jesus did not pass through Mary's vaginal canal at birth and consequently her hymen remained intact; (3) Mary never had intercourse with anyone after the birth of Jesus. All three have been affirmed by (some) Christians for centuries. But I take it that the point at issue here is thesis (2), not (1). Although it's hard to tell since people aren't always precise about making the distinction.

If you, like some of these Christians for centuries, would simply read the accounts, you'd see that 1. is unambiguously claimed, that 2. comes as a result of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, something not found in the canon of the New Testament, and that 3. is specifically denied by the same New Testament documents that state that although Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he did have intercourse afterwards.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

The topic is the virgin birth of Jesus. Three different claims go by that description. I distinguished them above. That's all.

There's a latin ditty that sums up the view: "virginitas ante partum, virginitas in partu, virginitas post partum".

It's hard to tell, but I take it that the British Clergy are doubting the "in partu" clause whereas people here want to defend the "ante partum" line.

[aruanan]

Keep in mind also that people in the days of Jesus were far, far more familiar with death than is the general populace today. Their testimony as to whether or not someone was actually dead was far more trustworthy than that of a member of the general American public today.

[MassExodus]

I need to keep the job I have got

Boy, what more needs to be said ?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Case in point. You accept (1) and reject (2) and (3).

Was it clear to you that the British Clergy were rejecting (1) rather than (2)?

[aruanan]

There's a latin ditty that sums up the view: "virginitas ante partum, virginitas in partu, virginitas post partum".

Having a baby miraculously conceived doesn't confer non-virginity any more than would breaking the hymen through birth confer non-virginity. It isn't the presence of a hymen that defines virginity, but the not having had sexual intercourse. As far as the virginitas post partum is concerned: "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." Matthew 1:24-25