Christians believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. The two gospels explicitly proclaiming the virgin birth of Jesus is Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-45. The most succinct statement of the Christian confession is the Apostle’s Creed, which is the oldest version of Christian confession. The Apostle's Creed is as follows:
I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting. (see article by James Orr, “The Apostle’s Creed,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 1, at www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html )
The Apostle’s Creed originates in apostolic times and was a baptismal formula. As such, new followers of Christ confessed this creed to confirm their faith in the essential message of the gospels and of the church. The Apostle’s Creed is the foundation of all other confessions including the Nicene,
The clause of importance here is “Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.” Liberal scholars and their followers deny the possibility of the virgin birth. Because other ancient religions claimed their saviors were virgin born or otherwise supernaturally born, liberals believe the early church adopted the myth probably to make the gospel more attractive to superstitious ancient people. This skeptical view might be true. However, what is often behind liberal skepticism is their outright rejection of the supernatural. Liberals tend to deny all of the miracles mentioned in the Bible, not just the virgin birth. The Christian confession would be meaningless if the supernatural was not an experienced reality. As the Apostle Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) The faith was not an exercise in philosophy or superstition to allay fear of death. Faith is (was) based on seeing, hearing, feeling the resurrection of Jesus and of others. Therefore, healing and resurrection from the dead was an experienced reality during the apostolic era that continued well beyond the apostles’ witness of Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly ascent. In fact, miraculous healings and resurrections continue in our own time.
The virgin birth of Jesus cannot be proved, nor can it be disproved either. An appropriate question requiring a logical answer is whether it is reasonable to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Merely dismissing the possibility because one does not believe in miracles or the supernatural is as meaningless as blindly confessing the virgin birth is true. To answer the question, one must consider whether any historical evidence exists that would support or refute the possibility of virgin birth. Is there any scientific evidence for virgin birth? If so, does the evidence prove the virgin birth? In addition, a search for evidence to support the reasonableness of Jesus’ virgin birth must consider any rational argument that might exist.
Skeptics readily supply a logical argument. However, from the outset, the argument by David Hume against testimonials for miracles must be discarded because medical testing confirms healing miracles based on religious faith do occur. We can also eliminate arguments against resurrection because many have occurred. More importantly, they are being medically and empirical verified. Consequently, by eliminating those two arguments that confirm the reality of God and the supernatural, much time will be saved in order to focus on the primary argument: is belief in the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?
In a future posting, I will begin to present an answer. Until then, a few observations from my past studies may be instructive. A number of years ago, I began searching for proof of the virgin birth of Jesus. I reviewed medical and scientific research on oocytology, regenerative medicine, genetics, reproductive behavior of animals and insects, neurology, paranormal science, and the like. Based on my less than fallible memory, I discovered research claiming virgin births do occur in nature. Men can have female type (XX) chromosomes of the 23rd pair just as women can have male type (xy) 23rd chromosomes. Women have a biological residue of male hormones that could be used in imprinting the genetic material of an egg. Imprinting is a hormonal process by which certain genes are turned on and off during various stages of cell development. These were some of my findings.
When considering people with terminal cancer and 6 month to live, my theory about people who have been miraculously healed because of religious faith is this: God answered their faith and prayers for deliverance. They were healed because the master geneticist forced aberrant cells to conform to His plan. The genetic information of cancer cells was changed to conform to normal cells. God spoke His word so that from quantum particles to individual genes all material aligned with God’s word. As it were, the blueprint of cancer cells was replaced by the blueprint of normal cells.
That is one reasonable possibility. It also gives an idea how I will approach my answer to the question: is the virgin birth of Jesus a reasonable belief?
No comments:
Post a Comment