This is wrong on so many levels.<\/p>\n
First, it assumes that Scripture speaks with a united voice on subjects such as these, so that, as long as one finds a passage or two that teach something, one can safely ignore other voices. When Paul states that Jesus is \u201cdescended from David according to the flesh\u201d, he is denying that Jesus was born of a virgin. Being of the royal line \u201caccording to the flesh\u201d meant descent on his father\u2019s side in that time. Coupled with his complete silence about a miraculous conception, there is no historically informed conclusion to be drawn other than that Paul either did not know about a doctrine about Jesus\u2019 \u201cvirgin birth\u201d, or if he had heard about it, he rejected it (as did many later Jewish Christians, who saw that it created problems for Jesus\u2019 descent from David).<\/p>\n
The virgin birth is not connected in the Bible with the deity of Christ. In fact, the only Gospel to offer something that could be accurately called a depiction of Christ as divine offers no birth story and no miraculous conception. It seems that here too we find that a historically sensitive reading of the New Testament leaves us forced to conclude that most of its authors denied (in the sense of failed to affirm) this other tenet of Christianity that Mohler considers central.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-5348813623600089384?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"