Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt
From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Virgin Birth (a brief clarification)
Message-ID: <5774@duke.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 16:51:42 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5774
Posted: Tue Apr 23 16:51:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 04:29:31 EST
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 26

[*]

   Ken Swanson writes the following, in regard to my article on views
on the immaculate conception (of Mary) and the virgin birth (of Christ):

> The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is claimed by a long-standing tradition
> common to Catholicism, Protestantism and Ort[h]odoxy; it is currently
> disputed (as it has been through the centuries) by SOME Christians(?)
> who obviously must not believe in the inspired and infallible
> written word of God, the Bible.
[References to Matthew 1 and Luke 1 are given.]

   Due to the nature of the original question (What are the major views on...),
I tried to give as neutral a summary as possible.  And I think it is correct
to say that many modern Christians doubt the virgin birth of Christ;
in fairness to them, this view should be included in a summary of the
existing viewpoints.
   Ken is correct, however, to point out that the accounts in Matthew
and Luke support the doctrine of the virgin birth.  It is also correct
to say that most who deny the virgin birth would not describe the
Bible as "the inspired and infallible written word of God" (though many
of them would say that the Bible is in some sense "inspired" and conveys
to us the word of God).

                                        N. L. Tinkham
                                        duke!nlt