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.

[Marysecretary]

He hung on the cross until God decided it was time for him to die. Period.l

[Marysecretary]

It's kind of like a doctor who doesn't believe the medicine or the operation will help you but they go ahead and do it anyway. Out, out, I say.

[Semper Paratus]

British clergy have doubts about virgin birth,

I'm having doubts about the British clergy.

[pgyanke]

Obviously!

:-)

[Protagoras]

Snippy today, aren't we?

Not more than usual.

And, I have addressed the kind of comments you made already.

That attitude is sure to alienate many of the souls he was "employed" to shepherd.

Don't be so sure that his "sheep" are alienated by his stance. That denomination isn't what it used to be.

[Sacajaweau]

Never saw the necessity of Jesus being a virgin birth. It embellishes a story though and makes Jesus outstanding against the norm. Since Jesus wasn't known until he became older, this meant going back, looking for evidence and there simply was none. The story is an historical novel.

[retiredtexan]

He isn't a coward for what he thinks. He's a coward for "pretending" to be a priest in the Anglican faith just to stay employed.

It is no surprise that the anglicans beleive that way.The anglican/episcopal church has gone too far from their traditional beliefs. Queers and women as priests. No more book of common prayer,pander to every leftist idea that comes along.

[Protagoras]

Decidely = decidedly

[pgyanke]

> "Don't be so sure that his "sheep" are alienated by his stance. That denomination isn't what it used to be."

I didn't mean alienated from him... I would consider that a good thing. I meant that he would alienate them from their own faith and from God.

I know, I know... poor word choice... happens.

[Protagoras]

The story is an historical novel.

And that is the Gospel, according to Sacajaweau.

[Protagoras]

I know, I know... poor word choice... happens.

To all of us.

[Lord_Baltar]

...INCOMING...

Man, I hope you're wearing your flame proof clothing today...

[pgyanke]

The virgin birth is a necessary part of the history and the fulfillment of prophecy. Consider this: Man condemned himself through his own unfaithfulness to God. If God is just, He must carry out the sentence prescribed. Our sin earned us the death we deserved. However, God loves us. He loves us so much that He came Himself in the person of Jesus to suffer the punishment due us. Rather than issue a simple pardon, He carried out our sentence on Himself. We who believe in Him can now have eternal life in Him, as God originally intended. [paraphrased from John 3:16]

> Without the virgin birth, Jesus is the son of Joseph, not God.

> Jesus died on the cross, yes, but not our sins.

> Rising from the dead is a parlor trick, not a miracle.

There is definitely a relevance.

[Just mythoughts]

To those who believe this explains why IPeter 4:17 "For the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God: .............

However, the rest of use won't be able to use them as an excuse for our own ignorance. Christ said many times "It is written" and "Have you not read" Based upon what has been posted is a sign of the times and Christ was to be a "stumbling block", don't fret fellow Christians these things must be. Be confident in faith and yet thankful that things are unfolding just as written in the Old and in the New, and as those thrown into the firey furnace were not singed, God promised to protect his own. "I will not leave thee or forsake thee IF". Christ set the example, fear them not. By the way the first two chapters of Luke lays out clearly for those who are interested, the time frame of the conception and birth of Christ.

Queen Elizabeth's duty is protector of the "Faith".

It is sad but predicted that so many have spent so much time it trying to dis-prove the written word just to make a living, I believe that they are referred to as "wolves in sheep clothing". Just their lot in life. Be of good cheer and "don't cast pearls before swine", trading insults does not reslove anything, stay in the Word and be comforted that no matter what anyone says God is in control.

[Defiant]

"Bad translations"? We have the original Greek and Hebrew, and I very much doubt whether any of these folks can point out the spots where texts concerning the virgin birth were mistranslated.

He's probably referring to the confusion over the translation of the Aramaic word that described Mary into "virgin" in the Greek version. In Aramaic, it could mean either virgin or "young girl", since they were both assumed to be the same thing, I suppose.

Still, I can't see how they can believe in the resurrection, but the notion of a divine birth is not believable to them. The biblical scholars mostly agree that Jesus was born out of wedlock (it was attested to early on, when people alive at the time could have contradicted it). What explains Joseph's acceptance of that? Why accept the later miracle but not the earlier?

What is most amazing is that these people chose to be clergy. With their beliefs, you'd think they'd get a different job.

[PRO 1]

That Clergy would have a problem reading scripture or believing what is written, is hardly supprising to me. When one has such problems they usually consult like ignoramases with like inability, reading their drivle as a "source for truth". *sigh*

[ConsistentLibertarian]

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.

[pgyanke]

> "The biblical scholars mostly agree that Jesus was born out of wedlock (it was attested to early on, when people alive at the time could have contradicted it)."

Jesus wasn't born out of wedlock. He was conceived out of wedlock. Big difference.

Joseph was encouraged by an angel in a dream to continue the wedding plans despite Mary being with child. Later, as his wife, she went with Joseph to Bethlehem for the census (when there was no room at the inn). Otherwise she would have gone with her own family.

There is great historical evidence that Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Jesus's birth and few real "scholars" dispute it.

[The Iguana]

And the Anglicans wonder why their denomination is shrinking faster than cotton in hot water.

[AnalogReigns]

> "If I recall correctly the "virgin birth" is mentioned in some of the four gospels, but not all four. The "virgin birth" is actually an old pagan idea that was adopted by the Christians to fulfill prophecy."

The prophecy was around long before the miracle. Christians didn't write history after Christ, they referred to history as evidence of His nature. Nice try.

*(since this was already answered I thought I'd pile on...)The controversy (if you want to call it that, really "apostosy" is a more accurate term) dates to the 19th Century theologically liberal scholars who out of their bias to disbelief, rejected ANYTHING supernatural in the bible. The word in the Old Testament for "virgin" can be translated alternately as "young woman" however, you have to ask why a prophet would predict such a "REMARKABLE" event as a young woman giving birth (since young women give birth all the time)... Also, these scholars ignore a basic biblical premis to let the Bible interpret itself, whenever possible. The 2 gospels that give an account of Jesus childhood do indeed mention and elaborate on the virgin birth (Matt. 1:1-25; Luke 1:26-38)--with specific quotation of the Isaiah 7:14 passage in Matthew, therefore the Bible tells us the interpretation of Isaiah is definitely not merely a young woman. Clearly it wasn't an invention taken from the pagan indea of virgin birth, rather its in the eye-witness testimony. Various pagan premonitions to truth can be shown...which doesn't show or come anywhere near proving Christians took their history from legend.

> "The curious thing about Jesus' life is that he wrote not a thing. You would think if his mission was really that important he would have written down his message and instructed people to make copies."

As Jesus hangs on the cross, dying for the sins of man, He is heard to say, "Can someone please bring me a pen?"

*Some great leaders in history have time to write...others do not. There are various godly heros in the Old Testament whose life was written ABOUT not autobiographical. Such a statement is arguing from silence, and seems to assume you know better how God should have worked it out...

> "The central tenet of Christianity is the resurrection..."

Exactly! See your previous sentence.

*Again, the original reason of doubting the virgin birth, was a bias against ALL miracles. If you accept the miracle of the ressurection, why is it so hard to accept the universe's Creator made a virgin conceive? (ahh, but we see below, you don't accept the miracle of resurection)

> "Also, there is some issue as to whether or not Jesus was really dead when he was removed from the cross. Most men languished for 2 or 3 days when crucified. He expired in 6 hours. Did Pontius Pilate make a deal with the Christians? He would "crucify" Jesus to satisfy the Jews, but bring him down before death on the agreement (perhaps) that Jesus would leave town forever."

And the spear in his side was just to make it look good?

*Again, this is that bias against the supernatural showing... you are engaged in mere speculation, in the face of eye-witness testimony. The spear indeed proves Jesus died.

1) Jesus was beaten severely before his crucifixion and did expire rapidly... so what? I've studied Roman history. Some could linger for more than a day... not most. Those who lingered were helped to linger to not let them off early. Crucifixion is horrible enough in action but death is primarily due to slow asphyxiation. Given his loss of blood due to the flagellation and fatique from the other beatings, I have no problem with the timing of His demise.

*"beaten" hardly begins to describe the indescribable trama of Roman scourging. 2 men with long cat-o-9 tails whips...which had bits of bone and iron embedded all along their tines would have literally torn most of the skin completely from Jesus back...with severe damage to the muscle tissue beneath as well. The skill of scourgers was measured in how close they could bring their victims to death without pushing them over...surely Jesus scourgers were very skilled. Then nail him to a tree and punch a spear in his side...and yet, he revived??? Wow, you really do believe the unbelievable. Jesus died. Christians have always known and proclaimed that fact.

2) Regardless of how long He had hung on the cross, He would have had a hard time visiting with His old buds without a long recuperation... three days just wouldn't do it and the Gospels are pretty clear that He did appear to His apostles and visit with them beginning immediately after the resurrection.

*My biggest beef with the theologically liberal, especially the clergy is the whole lack of integrity involved. Not the lack of integrity not believing...but in continuing to enjoy the respect, the titles, and often the paycheck that are really given to leaders under the understanding that they are honest. Show me someone who doesn't believe the virgin birth, and I'll show you someone who deserves not the respect of the title of "Christian" let alone "Reverend." Its simply dishonest in the extreme to be a preacher...who teaches the gospel stories...repeats weekly the ancient creeds (like Anglicans all do) which CLEARLY STATE one believes in the virgin birth, and the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, and stay in your position, pretending---lying really. The atheists down at the bar drinking their troubles away, have more integrity than that.

"Who was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilot was crucified dead and buried....and on the third day He arose again from the dead..." (from the Apostles Creed)